Search for: "State v. Means" Results 1 - 20 of 61,148
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Feb 2025, 6:44 pm by Richard Primus
  But it does not follow, as a matter of constitutional reasoning, that President Trump’s winning the 2024 election means that he cannot be impeached and removed from office on the basis of his role in the events of January 6. [read post]
10 Feb 2025, 4:11 pm by Murphy Law Firm Editor
[v] Currently, Wyoming is the only state that completely excludes undocumented workers from workers’ compensation coverage by statute. [read post]
10 Feb 2025, 5:33 am by lgorelik
Supreme Court decisions issued in June 2024: Food and Drug Administration v. [read post]
10 Feb 2025, 3:58 am by INFORRM
On 5 February 2025, judgment on meaning was handed down by Aiden Eardley KC in Paisley v Linehan [2025] EWHC 228 (KB). [read post]
10 Feb 2025, 3:29 am by Marcus Evans (UK) and Rosie Nance
Pseudonymised data may not be personal data in a party’s hands In his Opinion, the Advocate General stated that the EDPS should have verified whether Deloitte had “reasonable means” to reidentify the impacted data subjects. [read post]
9 Feb 2025, 5:52 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Engels.[1] Northern States Power Company (NSP) had 14 directors, each elected annually for a one-year term by means of cumulative voting. [read post]
9 Feb 2025, 5:52 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Engels.[1] Northern States Power Company (NSP) had 14 directors, each elected annually for a one-year term by means of cumulative voting. [read post]
8 Feb 2025, 8:42 am by Eric Goldman
Such instruction, advice, and ongoing tailoring of content by Defendants means that they “developed” this content on their sites. [read post]
7 Feb 2025, 12:30 pm by John Ross
New York (1905), as it states the case was overruled by Day-Brite Lighting (1952) and by Ferguson v. [read post]
7 Feb 2025, 12:20 pm by Emma Leeds Armstrong
This work is part of our broader fight against similar age-verification laws at the state and federal levels. [read post]
7 Feb 2025, 7:11 am by Jocelyn Bosse
But the PVR owner does not get the monopoly on this descriptive name - in fact, others are obliged to use the denomination to describe the variety - and this means that PVR owners cannot register trade marks for the denomination: Buchanan Turf Supplies Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2015] FCA 756.Only one other domain name dispute has dealt with variety denominations -  albeit as a defence. [read post]