:: D. Paul as an Example of Conduct and Watchfulness ( 3: 17 – 4: 1 )

:: Example 1 ( parliamentary monarchy ): Section 56 ( 1 ) of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 states:

:: Example 2 ( parliamentary non-executive monarchy ): Article 1 of the Constitution of Japan states:

:: Example 3 ( parliamentary republic ): Title II, Article 87 of the Constitution of Italy states:

:: Example 4 ( parliamentary republic ): Article 67 of the Iraqi constitution of 2005 states:

:: Example 5 ( parliamentary republic ): Title II, Chapter I, Article 120 of the Constitution of Portugal states:

:: Example 6 ( semi-presidential republic ): Chapter IV, Section 1, Article 66 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states:

:: Example 7 ( semi-presidential republic ): Chapter VI, Article 77 of the Constitution of Lithuania states:

:: Example 8 ( semi-presidential republic ): Chapter 4, Article 80, Section 1-2 of the Constitution of Russia states:

:: Example 1 ( parliamentary republic ): Article 59 ( 1 ) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany states:

:: Example 2 ( semi-presidential republic ): Title II, Article 14 of the French Constitution of 1958 states:

:: Example 3 ( semi-presidential republic ): Chapter 4, Article 86, Section 4 of the Constitution of Russia states:

:: Example 4 ( single party republic ): Section 2, Article 81 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China states:

:: Example 1 ( parliamentary monarchy ): According to Section 12 of the Constitution of Denmark 1953:

:: Example 2 ( parliamentary absentee monarchy ): Under Chapter II, Section 61 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900:

:: Example 3 ( parliamentary republic ): According to Article 26 ( 2 ) of the 1975 Constitution of Greece:

:: Example 4 ( parliamentary republic ): According to Article 53 ( 1 ) of the Constitution of India:

:: Example 5 ( presidential republic ): Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states:

:: Example 6 ( semi-presidential republic ): Under Chapter 4, Article 80, Section 3 of the Constitution of Russia:

:: Example 1 ( parliamentary monarchy ): Article 96 of the Constitution of Belgium:

:: Example 2 ( parliamentary non-executive republic ): Article 13. 1. 1 of the Constitution of Ireland:

:: Example 3 ( semi-presidential republic ): Chapter 4, Section 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states:

:: Example 1 ( parliamentary monarchy ): Article III, Section 15 of the Constitution Act, 1867, a part of the Constitution of Canada, states:

:: Example 2 ( parliamentary monarchy ): Article 25 of the Constitution of Norway states:

:: Example 3 ( parliamentary republic ): Chapter II, Article 87, 4th section of the Constitution of Italy states:

:: Example: Contra Fort Myers Ins.

:: Example: Contra, ante, at 690-691.

:: Rachael Blake, Wildside, ABC TV

:: Rachael Blake, Wildside, ABC TV

:: Hamish Blake, Hamish and Andy's Gap Year, Nine Network

:: R. H. Blake Humfrey ( Eton )

:: Shakespeare: Antony and Cleopatra I. v

:: e. g. C < sub > 13 </ sub >< sup > 7 </ sup > ( r, s, t, u, v, w, x )

:: e. g. const < sub > 13 </ sub > ( r, s, t, u, v, w, x ) =

Reprinted in John Cunningham Wood and Ronald N. Woods, ed., 1990, Milton Friedman :: Critical Assessments, v. 2, p p. 72-88.

At Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader :: The legislative history of the Sherman Act, as well as the decisions of this Court interpreting it, show that it was not aimed at policing interstate transportation or movement of goods and property.

:: Example: Nevertheless, the due process clause protects " property " interests ; and while the notion of property interest has been stretched quite far in certain contexts, e. g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 ( 1970 ), it depends importantly on what interests are recognized under state law.

:: Example: “ ervousness alone does not justify extended detention and questioning about matters not related to the stop .” United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 268 F. 3d 719, 725 ( 9th Cir.

:: Example: The following authorities held, prior to Crawford, that the Confrontation Clause does not require confrontation of certificates stating that instruments were in good working order at the time of a test: State v. Ing, 53 Haw.

:: Example: See also Martin v. Wilks, 490 U. S. 755, 784 n. 21, 104 L. Ed.

:: Example: See also Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F. 3d 1325, 1339 ( C. A. Fed. 2005 ) (“ oftware code ... drives the functional nucleus of the finished computer product .” ( quoting Imagexpo, L. L. C.

:: Example: A defendant is entitled to a diminished capacity instruction when he produces expert testimony establishing that he suffered from a mental disorder, and the evidence “ logically and reasonably connects the defendant's alleged mental condition with the ... inability to possess the required level of culpability to commit the crime charged .” State v. Griffin, 100 Wn. 2d 417, 418 – 19, 670 P. 2d 265 ( 1983 ); see also Cienfuegos, 144 Wn. 2d at 227 ; State v. Ellis, 136 Wn. 2d 498, 521, 963 P. 2d 843 ( 1998 ).

:: Example: The Court indirectly recognized as much when it stated in McMann v. Richardson, supra, 397 U. S., at 770, 771, 90 S. Ct., at 1448, 1449, that a guilty plea cannot be attacked as based on inadequate legal advice unless counsel was not “ a reasonably competent attorney ” and the advice was not “ within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases .” See also Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, 446 U. S., at 344, 100 S. Ct., at 1716.

:: Example: “ Each case must be scrutinized on its particular facts to determine whether a trial error is harmless error or prejudicial error when viewed in the light of the trial record as a whole, not whether each isolated incident viewed by itself constitutes reversible error .” United States v. Grunberger, 431 F. 2d 1062, 1069 ( CA2 1970 ).

:: Example: With the exception of Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 100 S. Ct.

:: Example: See generally Gonzalez v. Whitney & Rainey, 288 S. W.

:: Example: See generally Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 245-249, 56 S. Ct.

:: Example: Petitioners have raised an equal protection claim ( or, alternatively, a due process claim, see generally Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U. S. 422, 71 L. Ed.

:: Example: " See People v. Hilt, 298 Ill. App. 3d 121, 123, 125-26, 698 N. E. 2d 233, 232 Ill. Dec.

:: Example: Compare Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99, 105-107, 65 S. Ct.

:: Example: See American Trucking Associations v. United States EPA, 195 F. 3d 4 ( D. C. Cir.

:: Example: For a discussion of the Environmental Protection Agency's failure to interpret a statute to provide intelligible principles, see American Trucking Associations v. United States EPA, 195 F. 3d 4 ( D. C. Cir.

:: Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 318 ( 1988 ) ( recognizing public-issue signs to be classic examples of free speech ).