Search for: "Jones v. Jones et al" Results 261 - 280 of 648
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Feb 2015, 2:38 pm by Schachtman
In one instance, Greenland revisits one of his own cases, without any clear acknowledgment that his views were largely rejected.[6] The State of California had declared, pursuant to Proposition 65 ( the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code sections 25249.5, et seq.), that the State “knew” that di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, or “DEHP” caused cancer. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 2:30 pm by Schachtman
In one instance, Greenland revisits one of his own cases, without any clear acknowledgment that his views were largely rejected.[6] The State of California had declared, pursuant to Proposition 65 ( the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code sections 25249.5, et seq.), that the State “knew” that di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, or “DEHP” caused cancer. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 4:44 am by Jon Hyman
With this background in mind, let’s look at yesterday’s decision in Jones-Turner, et al. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 6:00 am by Melanie Martin-Jones and Jim Liles
” Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 4416, at 386 (2ed. 2002). [read post]
26 Jul 2014, 10:00 pm by Dan Flynn
But with the case of the United States v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 7:37 am
See Kerr, supra, at 404; Brief for Center for Democracy & Technology et al. as Amici Curiae 7–8. [read post]