Search for: "Does 1-54"
Results 2721 - 2740
of 3,421
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jan 2011, 11:25 am
The existing Indian family exception is a judicially created doctrine holding that the ICWA does not apply to those Indian children who have never been a member of an Indian home or culture and probably never would be.[14] Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians[15], many states adopted the existing Indian family exception. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 6:05 pm
The Debtors' Income The debtors' schedule I discloses income of $39,400 per month from their joint medical practice.[1] However, that disclosure does not include the income imputed as a result of the monthly payments on the debtors' three vehicles that the debtors' medical practice pays on their behalf.[2] These payments are $800 per month each for two Mercedes and $426 for a BMW. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 11:04 am
SoundView Financial Group, Inc., 54 F.Supp.2d 305, 323 (S.D. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 3:27 pm
Section 54:34-2c. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 10:55 pm
The Appeal Permission to appeal was granted by Mr Justice Collins in respect of whether: (1) detention was unlawful ab initio such that compensation was payable under Article 5(5); and (2) in the circumstances there had been a breach of Section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 3:53 pm
Much of Chapter 1 discusses the ways that our Constitution’s structure made possible, then entrenched, the contemporary two-party system. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 1:59 pm
1. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 11:48 am
The current bulk sales law, N.J.S.A. 54:50-38, applies to any sale, transfer or assignment (hereafter collectively referred to as a “Sale”) in bulk of any part or all of a person’s “business assets,” other than in the ordinary course of business of such person (i.e., the bulk sales law would not apply to Sales of assets considered inventory). [1] If a Sale is subject to the bulk sales law, the Purchaser is required to notify the Division of the… [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 11:08 am
Those states were Alaska[1], Arizona[2], Idaho[3], Michigan[4], New York[5], North Dakota[6], and Utah[7]. [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 11:08 am
Those states were Alaska[1], Arizona[2], Idaho[3], Michigan[4], New York[5], North Dakota[6], and Utah[7]. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 3:47 pm
Surry Sch Dept 54 IDELR 191, n. 3 (D. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 9:21 am
Iacobucci dismissed this out of hand, saying: “Acting in good faith or thinking that one has interpreted the contract correctly are not valid defences to an action for breach of contract” (para 54). [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 9:21 am
Iacobucci dismissed this out of hand, saying: “Acting in good faith or thinking that one has interpreted the contract correctly are not valid defences to an action for breach of contract” (para 54). [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 2:55 pm
Id. at 353-54.That brings us to Bates v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 11:08 am
However, only one state, New Jersey, interpreted the existing Indian family exception as a distortion of ICWA and declined to adopt the exception.[1] Indiana adopted the existing Indian family doctrine in the 1988 case of In the Matter of Adoption of T.R.M.[2] The child, T.R.M., was born in Hot Springs, South Dakota to a mother who was a member of the Oglala Sioux Indian Tribe.[3] The paternity of the child was not established.[4] … [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 11:08 am
However, only one state, New Jersey, interpreted the existing Indian family exception as a distortion of ICWA and declined to adopt the exception.[1] Indiana adopted the existing Indian family doctrine in the 1988 case of In the Matter of Adoption of T.R.M.[2] The child, T.R.M., was born in Hot Springs, South Dakota to a mother who was a member of the Oglala Sioux Indian Tribe.[3] The paternity of the child was not established.[4] … [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 10:27 am
The new suitability rule does not alter that conclusion. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 10:27 am
The new suitability rule does not alter that conclusion. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 4:05 pm
In Kearns v General Council of the Bar ([2003] 1 WLR 1357), the Bar Council had published a seriously defamatory statement circulated to all heads of chambers, senior clerks and practice managers in England and Wales. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 4:08 pm
"The literal scope of a properly construed means-plus-function limitation does not extend to all means for performing a certain function. [read post]
