the city and place a significant burden on the doctor); Commonwealth v. Atkinson, 987 A.2d 743, 750-51, ¶¶ 16-17 (Pa.Super.Ct.2009) (applying Craig and concluding that the defendant’s right to confrontation had been violated because expediting disposition of the case was an insufficient reason for allowing the use of two-way video testimony); Bush v. State, 193 P.3d 203, 215-16, ¶¶ 52-53 (Wyo.2008) (applying Craig to allow a witness’s testimony via two-way video “to further the important public policy of preventing further harm to his already serious medical condition”). ¶ 19 Assuming that two-way video testimony is not the equivalent of face-to-face confrontation, we adopt the Craig standard for the use of two-way video testimony and apply the Crai 2 S.Ct. 587, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, consistent with Craig, protecting a
holding that franchisor not only has valid interest in protecting good will it has developed but it also has an interest in being able to place a new franchisee at or near the same location where its goodwill has been created recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child recognizing the government has a demonstrated interest in apprehending criminal law violators thereby protecting potential victims recognizing that california has a valid interest in protecting a california company from copyright infringement recognizing virginias interest in protecting defendants from claims and in holding down insurance costs