Search for: "State v. P. B." Results 2581 - 2600 of 6,784
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Nov 2012, 2:25 am
Take a deep breath, it's a long one...NEWSInformation obtained under mutual legal assistance provisions cannot be disclosed in financial remedy proceedingsThe Home secretary and the Crown Prosecution Service have won their appeal against Moylan J's decision in P v P [2012] EWHC 1733 (Fam). [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 7:03 am by Paul Rosenzweig
Albright Former Secretary of State General Richard B. [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 3:48 pm by NL
The District Judge’s order stated that the court found that Ms Boyle was and had been a secure tenant of the Highbury flat within the meaning of section 79 of the 1985 Act. [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 3:48 pm by NL
The District Judge’s order stated that the court found that Ms Boyle was and had been a secure tenant of the Highbury flat within the meaning of section 79 of the 1985 Act. [read post]
28 Apr 2009, 8:05 am
You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 3:18 am by R. David Donoghue
P. 41(b), instead of continuing to state that the counterclaim was viable and that defendants would prosecute the counterclaim through trial, should it not be dismissed. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 4:49 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
En cuanto al mandato constitucional sobre fianza no excesiva, el informe positivo puntualiza e intenta adoptar lo resuelto en Hodgdon v United States, 365 F. 2d 679 (1966), que es un caso del Octavo Circuito que establece que una fianza no es inconstitucional sólo porque el imputado no puede prestarla por razón de falta de recursos. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 3:17 pm
 For example, on p. 10 of the Disposition, in a footnote, the court states: The petitioners also argue that the fuel burn analysis failed to show the redesign will reduce emissions in all relevant nonattainment and maintenance areas, see 40 C.F.R. 93.153(b), but that argument is not properly before us because the petitioners failed to raise it until their reply brief, Sitka Sound Seafoods, Inc. v. [read post]