Search for: "JONES v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al"
Results 21 - 40
of 90
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2014, 9:54 am
This case is titled, United States ex rel Jones, et al., v. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 6:43 pm
The case is Mayo Collaborative Services, et al., v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 8:29 pm
The Department of Justice thinks so, and a federal district court agreed. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 12:16 pm
Smart Pharmacy, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-387 (M.D. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:31 am
Morgan, et. al., no. 11-4303 (E.D. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 8:08 am
Jones v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 10:07 am
Chamber of Commerce et al. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 3:25 pm
(forthcoming)Amicus brief of the American Civil Rights UnionAmicus brief of the National Association of Home Builders et al. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 8:53 am
The case was Irving N., et al., v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 8:53 am
The case was Irving N., et al., v. [read post]
15 Dec 2018, 3:00 am
This amendment set out New York State's response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al, 138 SCt 2448. [read post]
15 Dec 2018, 3:00 am
This amendment set out New York State's response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al, 138 SCt 2448. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 11:23 am
The above case law has limited the scope of relief to a credit against arrears (Fitzgerald et al, supra), or a determination by the Family Court of the amount of a credit for overpayments made directly to the custodial parent and also collected simultaneously by the Support collections Unit (Taddonio et al, supra at 936). [read post]
22 May 2016, 6:06 pm
Richard Aaron et al.), but the only U.S. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 12:40 pm
LaHood, 10-1185, and Jones v. [read post]
28 Oct 2012, 5:30 am
RITCHIE, ET AL. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 9:31 am
Town of East Haven, et. al.). [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 11:10 am
Jones v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 1:15 pm
Fox Television Stations, et al. (10-1293), but the protection from children from profanity and nudity considered harmful to them is directly at issue. [read post]
