Search for: "State v. L. B." Results 2161 - 2180 of 6,570
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 May 2012, 8:20 am
 Allergan also based their grounds on Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of the Regulation. [read post]
19 Jun 2019, 4:00 am by Administrator
Theberge-Lindsay v. 3395022 Canada Inc. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 9:57 am by Wolfgang Demino
Similarly, the court held that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) (relief sought appropriate to class as a whole) and (b)(3) (common questions of law or fact predominate) were not satisfied "because there is no showing that the circumstances of each proposed class member are like those of Plaintiff, and because the resolution will turn on individual determinations as to cardholder agreements and assignments of debt. [read post]
14 Jan 2008, 2:52 am
That's not really the question, but here is a blog entry from a case discussed by L. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 5:45 am
Cranfill, Judge.Representing Appellants Krenning: Larry B. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
 The Appellate Division noted that this contention was rejected by the Court of Appeals in Kolbe v Tibbets, 22 NY3d 344. [read post]