Search for: "State v. K. K. C." Results 201 - 220 of 2,273
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Aug 2022, 3:22 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
After cancelling the mediation, BSF and B&K billed plaintiff an additional $892,023.18 (id., ,r 442). [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 3:10 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Critically, the PAC alleges that plaintiff never paid BRIR a retainer (NYSCEF Doc No. 203, ,r 67) and that she had retained “Joel C. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 6:41 am by CMS
Throughout this assessment, it is important to remember that this hugely depends on the evolving social context, vulnerability of the victim and the role played by state responsibility, all of which will be discussed in this essay. [read post]
4 Aug 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
From that it follows that it is impermissible to base state policies on claimsabout the divine will. [read post]
30 Jul 2022, 7:22 am by Matthias Weller
The Commission Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014 (point 9 of Annex IV to Form V) does not have a bearing on this decision as it can only implement but not modify the Regulation (para. 73). [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 4:24 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The correct approach is to follow the guidance which was stated to be “authoritative” in KO (Nigeria), namely the direction in the Upper Tribunal case of MK (Sierra Leone) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] INLR 563 (“MK”). [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 11:31 am by Benjamin Pollard
The “D” indicator joins the “K” indicator used to denote countries where there is a risk of kidnapping and hostage-taking by non-state actors. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 5:13 am by Eugene Volokh
Indeed, similar rules apply in many states to private schools more generally; if a state bans discrimination in admission by such schools, which many states do, that brings with it similar restrictions on speech that creates a "hostile environment" (which would likely violate the First Amendment when applied to curriculum, see Runyon v. [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 3:28 am by Peter Mahler
The more interesting part of the decision concerns the plaintiffs’ direct, contract claim alleging that the issuance of the treasury shares without payment violated the operating agreement’s provision stating that the Class C treasury units “will only be issued as Class C Units, unless purchased/assigned to Class A Member(s). [read post]