Search for: "State v. LICENSED OR CHARTERED CHILD-PLACING A."
Results 1 - 20
of 27
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Feb 2024, 1:53 pm
UruguayNicolás Souto Gancio v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:08 pm
The relief has been in place in some form since 1 July 2013. [read post]
30 Apr 2023, 12:37 am
Apart from the fact that that leaves only eight months in which to get Faith Partnership Charters up and running, what happens if a local council does not wish to get involved with its “places of worship”? [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 7:48 am
Is that governed by Member State law? [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 6:14 am
Have you or your child experienced discrimination in school? [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 8:07 am
(Children attending licensed daycare centres are also subject to the regime.) [read post]
31 Oct 2019, 3:59 am
However, this does not apply to consumer loans where licensing requirements will apply. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am
Petitioner Bostock worked for the Clayton County Juvenile Court System as a child welfare services coordinator. [read post]
14 Dec 2018, 7:16 pm
The internet platform then standing in the role of the state, but the state can go after the enterprise where it fails in its monitoring and controlling functions. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 6:55 am
In United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 11:53 am
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, the Texas Supreme Court struck down the state’s licensing requirements for eyebrow threaders. [read post]
1 Jan 2018, 6:50 am
In Texas v. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 1:19 pm
In United States v. [read post]
25 Aug 2016, 6:00 am
A key goal of the system has been described as cultural genocide or “killing the Indian in the child” by depriving them of their ancestral languages and religious teachings. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 8:32 pm
Generally speaking, estoppel cannot be used against a state or municipal government (see e.g., New York State Medical Transporters Association v. [read post]
Once again, the RCMP calls for warrantless access to your online info. Once again, the RCMP is wrong
26 Nov 2015, 4:07 am
The Supreme Court of Canada, in R v. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 12:17 pm
”[8] Polygamists have been arguing for decades that they cannot be prosecuted for violating anti-bigamy statutes if they secure only one civil marriage license, or if none of their “marriages” are state sanctioned. [read post]
27 May 2015, 11:59 am
A: In Pennsylvania, worked in charter school on media literacy. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 6:31 am
State, supra (quoting James v. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 3:58 am
The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that the suspension of plaintiff's license amounted to a substantive due process violation and was retaliation for past testimony. [read post]
