Search for: "Application of Campbell County"
Results 221 - 240
of 256
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
In two separate appeals (“Music I” [Appeal No. 21,948] and “Music II” [sic Appeal No. 21,978]), Petitioner challenged decisions by the Board of Education and the School Superintendent [collectively, “Respondents"].Because these appeals arose out of similar facts and circumstances and presented similar issues of law, they were consolidated for decision by the Commissioner of Education.The Commissioner, holding that Music I must be dismissed,… [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 10:11 am
But the Second Circuit held that under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 1:33 pm
On July 9, 2015, Judge Laura Salinas of the 166th Civil District Court in Bexar County, Texas entered an order denying Cash Biz’s motion to enforce arbitration and waiver-of-class-action provisions in the underlying loan documents (not involved in the criminal case). [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 9:22 am
Reply of petitioner Charles Mix County Title: Yankton Sioux Tribe v. [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 2:57 am
Joel Wolfram and Campbell Robertson report for the New York Times. [read post]
22 May 2015, 12:27 am
“When I was still a small boy, my father took me with him to Campbell Courthouse where there was a big trial in progress in the Circuit Court, in which a number of educated lawyers were taking part, namely; Judge William Daniel, Daniel Marr, Judge Wood Bouldin, Colonel Stanhope Flournoy and one or more lesser lights. [read post]
21 May 2015, 10:19 am
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. [read post]
20 Oct 2008, 6:46 pm
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, October 14, 2008 In re the County of Erie, No. 075702 Following an order requiring the production of ten e-mail communications allegedly protected by the attorney-client privilege in a case involving a Fourth Amendment claim for invasive strip search, petition for writ of mandamus directing district court to vacate the order is affirmed where: 1) a party must rely on privileged advice from his counsel to make his claim or defense; 2) the district court… [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 9:54 am
Vol. 2, No. 15, June 5, 2010 The following is a summary review of articles from all over the nation concerning environmental law settlements, decisions, regulatory actions and lawsuits filed during the past week. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 10:04 am
Vol. 2, No. 15, June 5, 2010 The following is a summary review of articles from all over the nation concerning environmental law settlements, decisions, regulatory actions and lawsuits filed during the past week. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
JESUSA ACOSTA, ET AL.; from Bexar County; 4th Court of Appeals District (04-13-00110-CV, 406 SW3d 711, 06-26-13) 13-0577 THE FREDERICKSBURG CARE COMPANY, L.P. v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am
Appeal of MOMS FOR LIBERTY OF WAYNE COUNTY and REV. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am
Appeal of MOMS FOR LIBERTY OF WAYNE COUNTY and REV. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 7:24 am
Content warning: This post contains content that may be upsetting for some readers. [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 4:06 pm
An application for permission to appeal has been lodged in the case of ZXC v Bloomberg. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 9:46 am
Agar therefore submits that the applicable statute of limitations for a civ [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 4:05 pm
Jane Clift The influence of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the law of breach of confidence and the development of a domestic tort of “misuse of private information” has been well documented. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 10:17 am
The prosecution also called four inmates from the Hamilton County Justice Center, who testified that Harris said he was going to the psychiatric ward to fake being “crazy. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 3:00 am
Carteret County Sheriff’s deputies observed what they believed to be a drug transaction in the parking lot of an apartment complex. [read post]
31 May 2022, 6:43 am
In Norfolk County Council v Webster & Ors [2006] EWHC 2733 (Fam), a case decided [pre-rule change], Munby J […] held that a case where journalists were permitted to enter court and observe the proceedings under an ad hoc arrangement was not one held “in private” for the purposes of section 12 of the 1960 Act. [read post]
