Search for: "State v. Plan" Results 2781 - 2800 of 29,602
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Nov 2015, 7:51 am by Burton A. Padove
The two were also raising two foster children and they had planned to adopt them, but the husband stated he no longer wanted to adopt after filing for divorce. [read post]
9 Jan 2008, 11:54 pm
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 9:42 am by Diana L. Skaggs
The formation of the GRAT in this case was for a valid estate planning purpose and is nearly identical to the estate planning scheme in Gripshover v. [read post]
30 May 2023, 3:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
The injunction prohibits defendants from continuing to collect co-payments and does not mandate specific conduct by them (State of New York v Town of Haverstraw, 219 AD2d 64, 65-66 [2d Dept 1996]; see generally Second on Second CafÉ, Inc. v Hing Sing Trading, Inc., 66 AD3d 255, 264 [1st Dept 2009]). [read post]
30 May 2023, 3:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
The injunction prohibits defendants from continuing to collect co-payments and does not mandate specific conduct by them (State of New York v Town of Haverstraw, 219 AD2d 64, 65-66 [2d Dept 1996]; see generally Second on Second CafÉ, Inc. v Hing Sing Trading, Inc., 66 AD3d 255, 264 [1st Dept 2009]). [read post]
15 May 2011, 12:23 pm by Thaddeus Mason Pope, J.D., Ph.D.
  And it is this limitation of the CCB approach that is being challenged in the Rasouli v. [read post]
12 Nov 2017, 5:45 pm
Justice Cullity’s decision in Banton v. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 3:32 pm
City of Rittman (No. 06-1481) (docket listing here), a petition asking the court to reconsider the ruling in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 3:32 pm
City of Rittman (No. 06-1481) (docket listing here), a petition asking the court to reconsider the ruling in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. [read post]
2 May 2016, 6:17 am by Paul Dietze Ph.D.
(“Mylan”), a generic drug manufacturer, was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Delaware because Mylan had filed an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) and “contemplate[d] plans to engage in marketing of the proposed generic drugs” in the state.[1] The ruling affirmed two different decisions by judges in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware that Mylan was subject to specific jurisdiction in... [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 12:01 pm by Unknown
District Court for the Southern District of New York that it plans to seek an interlocutory appeal of the two unregistered securities claims that it lost in the case it brought against Ripple Labs, Inc. [read post]