Search for: "State v. Manning" Results 221 - 240 of 15,012
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Oct 2023, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
But a cursory comparison of the equivalent piece of Australian federal legislation  to the legislation at issue in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo suggests it is at least not true in all cases. [read post]
30 Sep 2023, 1:40 am by centerforartlaw
DiMarco (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/florida-man-sentenced-4-years-prison-fraudulent-acquisition-valuable-artworks-using) United States v. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Yahoo News – Ken Dilanian and Frank Thorp V (NBC News) | Published: 9/27/2023 U.S. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
Rather than mock what might strike many vegans (and even quite a few non-vegans) as insubstantial objections, Sherry tries wherever possible to construct and respond to what is sometimes called a "steel man" argument (in contrast to the proverbial straw man). [read post]
23 Sep 2023, 7:21 pm by Bill Marler
 [11, 12]  Consequently, an outbreak would not be detected if it was not large enough to prompt investigation.[11, 13] E. coli O157:H7’s ability to induce injury in humans is a result of its ability to produce numerous virulence factors, most notably Shiga toxin (Stx), which is one of the most potent toxins known to man. [4, 14, 15]  Shiga toxin has multiple variants (e.g. [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 11:30 am by JURIST Staff
Given all of the above, all that remains is to follow the course of the case before the future actions of the IACHR, the defence of Polay Campos and the Peruvian State. [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 5:29 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In his opposition affidavit, David states that he has no recollection of receiving it, and Singer’s claim that the letter was mailed does not give rise to the presumption of receipt, as he does not present evidence of defendant firm’s office practices pertinent to mailing (see Lindsay v Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano LLP, 129 AD3d 790, 793 [2d Dept 2015]; Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP v Brophy, 19 AD3d 161, 162 [1 st Dept… [read post]