Search for: "Attorney General v. Superior Court"
Results 2681 - 2700
of 3,267
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Dec 2009, 12:39 pm
The Act does not create parental rights for would-be parents who arrange for the creation of a baby.In 1992, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Act in the case of John Doe -v- Michigan Attorney General, holding:As overwhelmingly repugnant as the thought may be, unbridled surrogacy for profit could encourage the treatment of babies as commodities. [read post]
12 May 2010, 4:16 am
Trojan, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2023, 12:13 pm
Smith v. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 9:58 am
Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8), while they have also reigned in the record’s scope by holding the statute does not abrogate or impliedly repeal the law of privilege. [read post]
14 Feb 2009, 1:10 am
He cited a 1995 Supreme Court opinion - United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 9:05 pm
Superior Court, 220 Cal.App.3d 864, 877 (1990). [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 6:07 am
It is both a political and a judicial process in that in order to be extradited, both the Minister of Justice and a Superior Court judge must sign-off on the decision. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 6:26 am
They also sought relief under the Private Attorney General Act. [read post]
4 Dec 2007, 4:03 am
In a 2005 speech to the NSA, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey called for a commitment to "Intelligence Under the Law. [read post]
22 Aug 2007, 9:15 pm
A key case here is Tunkl v. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 7:48 am
County Superior Court claiming $10 million in damages for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 12:08 pm
According to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Engquist v. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 5:34 pm
Attorney General Becerra argues that the banned rifles are not common in California. [read post]
4 May 2012, 3:24 am
”’ Later that day at 4:54 P.M., Juror B posted again: `Superior Court in Brockton picks me . . . for the trail[ sic ]. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 2:25 pm
– Last April, a divided Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
” §§80.2 and 80-A.2 of the Civil Service Law set out the effect, or lack thereof, of “interruptions in service” in the event of resignation followed by a reinstatement; appointment to a position in the unclassified service and other types of absences or leaves.Abolishment of positionsAs to mechanics, the Attorney General has concluded that there must be an actual and lawful abolishment of a position in order to lawfully remove an employee from his or her… [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
” §§80.2 and 80-A.2 of the Civil Service Law set out the effect, or lack thereof, of “interruptions in service” in the event of resignation followed by a reinstatement; appointment to a position in the unclassified service and other types of absences or leaves.Abolishment of positionsAs to mechanics, the Attorney General has concluded that there must be an actual and lawful abolishment of a position in order to lawfully remove an employee from his or her… [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
” §§80.2 and 80-A.2 of the Civil Service Law set out the effect, or lack thereof, of “interruptions in service” in the event of resignation followed by a reinstatement; appointment to a position in the unclassified service and other types of absences or leaves.Abolishment of positionsAs to mechanics, the Attorney General has concluded that there must be an actual and lawful abolishment of a position in order to lawfully remove an employee from his or her… [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
” §§80.2 and 80-A.2 of the Civil Service Law set out the effect, or lack thereof, of “interruptions in service” in the event of resignation followed by a reinstatement; appointment to a position in the unclassified service and other types of absences or leaves.Abolishment of positionsAs to mechanics, the Attorney General has concluded that there must be an actual and lawful abolishment of a position in order to lawfully remove an employee from his or her… [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 1:44 pm
The Supreme Court, in Tomlinson v. [read post]
