Search for: "HOLT v. HOLT"
Results 241 - 260
of 516
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jul 2014, 1:31 am
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: Holt v Her Majesty’s Attorney General on behalf of the Queen, heard 15 – 16 January 2014. [read post]
12 Oct 2023, 3:04 pm
Holt, 152 So. 3d 745, 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Granite Rock Co. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2012, 7:06 am
On the other hand, the case, Robinson v. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 7:06 am
Holt v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 5:30 pm
We have two topics dominating today’s conversation on LXBN: the Supreme Court ruling in Christopher v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 8:51 am
In Summers v. [read post]
7 Sep 2023, 12:32 pm
Holt, 152 So. 3d 745, 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Granite Rock Co. v. [read post]
1 Jan 2020, 8:30 pm
In the case of Holt v. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 5:11 am
Early cases, such as the 1803 Runkle v. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm
Parents v. [read post]
23 Dec 2016, 8:11 am
(Holt v. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 1:04 pm
App. 1993) and Holt v. [read post]
7 Oct 2024, 4:05 pm
Elenis and Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 6:00 am
At the National Review Online’s Bench Memos blog, Carrie Severino notes the “strange bedfellows” that have filed amicus briefs in next Term’s Holt v. [read post]
8 Oct 2016, 10:16 am
National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co., Oct. 5, 2016, North Dakota Supreme Court More Blog Entries: Holt v. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 10:13 am
" Trump responded to Wolff's reporting with a pair of cease-and-desist letters from his attorneys (Harder Mirell & Abrams of Beverly Hills CA) — one to Bannon and one to Wolff and his publisher (Henry Holt & Co.) [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 4:25 am
However, a party may forfeit that right if he or she abuses the judicial process by engaging in [*2]meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will (see Duffy v Holt-Harris, 260 AD2d 595; Matter of Shreve v Shreve, 229 AD2d 1005). [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 3:45 am
In Holt v Board of Education, 52 NY2d 625, the Court of Appeals decided that performance evaluations and letters of criticism placed in the employee’s personnel file were not “disciplinary penalties” and thus could be placed there without having to first hold a disciplinary proceeding. [read post]
