Search for: "State v. Michael A." Results 2581 - 2600 of 13,671
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jun 2020, 12:26 pm by Kevin LaCroix
[v] Two examples of these strategic practices emerged following the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in the Trulia case[vi] and the Supreme Court’s decision in the Cyan case. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 3:45 am by Edith Roberts
Yesterday the court released a unanimous opinion in Lomax v. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 9:09 am by Amy Howe
With the grant in Niz-Chavez v. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 2:02 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (on the application of Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12 December 2019. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 2:32 pm by Olivia Cross
The Supreme Court stated this conclusion nearly one hundred years ago in Local Loan Co. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 2:32 pm by Olivia Cross
The Supreme Court stated this conclusion nearly one hundred years ago in Local Loan Co. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
Campaign Funds for Judges Warp Criminal Justice, Study Finds New York Times – Adam Liptak | Published: 6/1/2020 In Gideon v. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 3:59 am by Edith Roberts
At Dorf on Law, Michael Dorf wonders why the dissenters to the court’s order late last week in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 4:04 pm by Patricia Hughes
Section 49 states that an individual who has contravened or failed to comply with an order or the Act is liable to a maximum fine of $10,000 or imprisonment of up to 6 months or both for a first offence and up to additional fines of up to $1,000 a day if the offence continues (fines increase to a maximum of $25,000 or up to 12 months imprisonment for subsequent offences or both and a maximum of $25,000 for each day the offence continues). [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 10:35 am by Schachtman
Federal and State Prosecutions against Physicians and Screening Companies After Judge Jack’s exposé of fraudulent and false diagnoses in the silicosis MDL, various news media reported that the United States Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York was investigating possible criminal charges against the physicians and lawyers who orchestrated the screenings. [read post]
1 Jun 2020, 7:44 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (on the application of Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12 December 2019. [read post]