Search for: "Fine v. Fine"
Results 261 - 280
of 15,989
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jun 2020, 7:10 pm
Maroney v Planning Board of Haverhill, 2020 WL 3165011 (MA. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 4:09 pm
After considering the Supreme Court's decision in F.C.C. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 12:46 pm
Montgomery v. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 7:13 am
Given that at least two of those cases remain subject to ongoing appeal proceedings (Fisher v Brooker, the "Whiter Shade of Pale" case, is awaiting judgement in the House of Lords and Football Association Premier League Limited and others v QC Leisure, the case concerning smartcards for foreign satellite transmissions, is pending before the European Court of Justice), another edition very soon will doubtless be justified. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 2:54 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 11:31 am
While this case was on appeal, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the FCC's indecency rules in Federal Communications Commission v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 7:00 pm
Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided to consider Timbs v. [read post]
22 May 2007, 1:05 pm
A fine new article forthcoming in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty provides fresh insights on the Supreme Court's last major gun control case, U.S. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2017, 7:31 am
Relevant to Hitachi v. [read post]
LTACH Medical Director and Medical Center Employees Receive Fines and Probation for HIPAA Violations
5 Dec 2009, 6:49 am
(U.S. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 7:00 pm
In R. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
We are examining Fiero v. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 10:04 am
In an extensive Medicaid fraud case, United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 6:00 am
Continue reading The post STOLEN UNENCRYPTED LAPTOP FROM HOSPITAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATE RESULTS IN HIPPA VIOLATION AND MILLION DOLLAR FINE: IS YOUR MEDICAL or DENTAL PRACTICE NEXT? [read post]
7 Sep 2016, 8:00 am
Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 7:49 am
26 Sep 2008, 6:30 am
It is not often that the beginning of a judgment contains a profound statement, but in the recent Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal case of Menzies v Owen, the beginning starts thus: Ron Owen is entitled to be a homophobe and he is entitled to publicly express his homophobic views. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 5:31 am
Here is a case from Brooklyn:Diamond v. [read post]
24 Dec 2012, 4:00 am
Citing the Pell standard, of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 7:57 pm
Here are three briefs filed today in State ex rel Lykos v. [read post]
