Search for: "In Re Appeal No. 101, Term 1976"
Results 1 - 20
of 28
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2024, 3:42 pm
S. 185, 208 (1976). [read post]
15 Aug 2023, 12:13 pm
Consequently, in the event that a jury demand is made at the last moment in a term when a jury could not be impaneled in time to try the case in that term, the demand is considered applicable instead to the following term. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 7:35 am
GA Code § 15-12-101 Special purpose grand juries may compel evidence and subpoena witnesses. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 9:01 pm
EPA.[46] As the Supreme Court observed, “[e]xtraordinary grants of regulatory authority are rarely accomplished through ‘modest words,’ ‘vague terms,’ or ‘subtle device[s]’” and that Congress does not “typically use oblique or elliptical language to empower an agency to make a ‘radical or fundamental change’ to a statutory sche [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 7:54 am
Moreover, to the extent they are in conflict with the 1976 Act, the federal statute must prevail. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 4:13 am
” In re Franklin Nat. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:37 pm
(citing In re Appropriation for Hwy. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 11:31 am
Carpenter appealed to the U.S. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 10:12 am
HILL, Jr., Appellee and Cross-Appellant.No. 05-13-01634-CV.Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.Opinion Filed January 26, 2016.773*773 On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 5:00 am
The New York Court of Appeals is fine on the burden of proof in warning cases generally. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 12:29 pm
For 100 years, the term was known as deportation. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 7:40 am
Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d 101, 2006-Ohio-1934, 846 N.E.2d 43 (a Civ.R. 60(B) motion cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal and that the doctrine of res judicata applies to such a motion). [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 9:55 am
” In short, we’re not precisely sure what the Copyright Act regulates, but whatever it is, Aereo’s doing it. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 11:10 am
No. 94-1476, at 64 (1976). [read post]
14 May 2013, 12:22 am
’ Arguments drawn from such terms for ascertaining patentability could fairly be employed to challenge almost every patent. [read post]
23 Dec 2012, 3:26 pm
Kathy K (The), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; Housen v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 1:05 pm
State, 332 So.2d 601 (Fla.1976); Walker v. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 2:08 am
Case Study: In a recent appeal decided by the Supreme Court on section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the submissions of the prominent corporate lawyers in India are note-worthy to note. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 9:03 pm
Waiver of Right to Object: The provisions pertaining to waiver of the right to object to any non-compliance has been substantially re-worded in the New Rules. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 9:28 pm
Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976)). [read post]
