Search for: "Modified Opinion filed 3/1/10"
Results 201 - 220
of 728
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jun 2007, 2:42 pm
& Tech. 10 (2007). 3. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 3:36 pm
Code § 15-48-10, both because 63-3-530(A)(39) is more recent and more specific. [read post]
21 Feb 2023, 1:21 pm
In a published opinion filed February 6, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed a judgment setting aside an addendum to a 2010 program EIR (PEIR) and accompanying approvals for a 275,000-square foot office complex on a 4.95-acre parcel (the “Gemdale project” or “project”) within the 2,800-acre Irvine Business Complex (IBC). [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 3:41 pm
Prine:Justice Harvey Brown’s recent opinion in Savoy v. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 6:20 am
’ 1 U.S.Code § 1. [read post]
30 Jul 2016, 10:37 am
That’s a 10-4 here. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 7:34 am
1. [read post]
9 Nov 2013, 6:51 am
It's opinion discusses some of the coverage under the collision portion of a Texas auto policy. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 6:07 pm
No second medical opinions. 440.13(1)(h)&(5). [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 10:17 pm
Assem., Senate Proceedings, Oct. 10, 2007, at 30-31. [read post]
4 May 2016, 12:00 am
² Effective January 15, 2015, a new subsection 1 was added to section 408.040; nevertheless, the subsections pertaining to nontort and tort actions remained unchanged and were merely renumbered to become what are now subsections 2 and 3. [read post]
15 Aug 2020, 4:29 am
August 1, 2020 An article titled “Is there a Domestic Relations Exception to Diversity Jurisdiction", by Judge George B. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
Admissibility of the referral[1] In decision G 1/07 [4.2.3] the EBA pointed out that it was aware that, subsequent to decisions G 1/03 and G 2/03 different opinions have been expressed in the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal on whether decisions G 1/03 and G 2/03 relate to the disclaiming of embodiments which are disclosed as part of the invention in the application as filed or whether in that situation the jurisprudence as previously… [read post]
22 May 2010, 6:55 am
Ride-through is no longer an option and so these debtors who would otherwise be in default under state contract law must choose from the options expressly listed under 362(h)(1)(A) if they wish to maintain possession of their secured property in bankruptcy.[1] 581 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2009).[2] 139 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 1998).[3] In re Dumont, 581 F.3d at 1107.[4] Id.[5] 11 U.S.C. [read post]
8 Oct 2011, 12:57 pm
Two dissents were filed in the case. [read post]
27 Sep 2007, 11:10 am
Crouch, 201 S.W.3d 463, 465 (Ky.2006)("[T]rial court had no jurisdiction to modify the [permanent custody] order unless a motion to modify, along with a supporting affidavit, was filed in the case. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 7:07 am
Opinion available at http://www.la3circuit.org/Opinions/2016/12/122116/16-0468opi.pdf. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 7:07 am
Opinion available at http://www.la3circuit.org/Opinions/2016/12/122116/16-0468opi.pdf. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 7:07 am
Opinion available at http://www.la3circuit.org/Opinions/2016/12/122116/16-0468opi.pdf. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 7:07 am
Opinion available at http://www.la3circuit.org/Opinions/2016/12/122116/16-0468opi.pdf. [read post]
