Search for: "State v. P. B."
Results 2861 - 2880
of 6,784
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 May 2015, 2:08 pm
So anyone who claims that the Senate never considered withholding subsidies in recalcitrant states is either a) dishonest, or b) doesn’t know what they’re talking about. [read post]
25 May 2015, 2:13 pm
Family Court Act § 846 states in pertinent part that petitioner who has obtained a lawful order of protection of Family Court, may [162 Misc.2d 27] petition Family Court for enforcement of that order "requiring the respondent to show cause why respondent should not be dealt with in accordance with section eight hundred forty-six-a of this part" ( § 846[b]. [read post]
25 May 2015, 2:13 pm
Family Court Act § 846 states in pertinent part that petitioner who has obtained a lawful order of protection of Family Court, may [162 Misc.2d 27] petition Family Court for enforcement of that order "requiring the respondent to show cause why respondent should not be dealt with in accordance with section eight hundred forty-six-a of this part" ( § 846[b]. [read post]
25 May 2015, 1:29 pm
Or, to put it slightly more precisely : Rape is the intentional, p*nile penetration of the v*gina, an*s or mouth of another without that person’s consent and without reasonable belief that that person is consenting. [read post]
25 May 2015, 5:02 am
’ State v. [read post]
24 May 2015, 4:35 pm
Troxel v. [read post]
23 May 2015, 9:00 pm
GUY P. [read post]
22 May 2015, 8:55 am
P. 26(b)(3)) is always related to policy positions being developed by the agency and is thus always exempt from disclosure under the public records law. [read post]
22 May 2015, 8:33 am
P. 41(b).Have a nice weekend everyone.H/T SFLawyers. [read post]
20 May 2015, 7:04 pm
According to Opperman, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) in this context does not require more particular pleading than would be required in a state court. [read post]
18 May 2015, 7:29 am
§ 414(p) and 29 U.S.C. [read post]
18 May 2015, 5:44 am
Baidoo v. [read post]
18 May 2015, 5:42 am
In Costello v. [read post]
16 May 2015, 1:37 pm
P. [read post]
14 May 2015, 7:28 am
” Here are a couple of recent ones that looked interesting to us.Tort Liability and Medical InnovationThe first one is Anna B. [read post]
13 May 2015, 4:20 pm
On May 7th, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its much anticipated ruling in Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. [read post]
13 May 2015, 4:20 pm
On May 7th, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its much anticipated ruling in Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. [read post]
13 May 2015, 2:09 am
On ‘fend for oneself’, while this might have been useful in the context of R v Waveney DC ex p Bowers [1983] QB 238, 244H, “it is not the statutory test, and at least to some people a person may be vulnerable even though he can fend for himself”. [read post]
11 May 2015, 2:51 am
B Coetzee Bester and A Louwhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v18i1.012. [read post]
