Search for: "Does 1-22" Results 281 - 300 of 15,024
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2019, 3:47 am by Diane Tweedlie
The board in arriving at this conclusion does not deviate from G 1/10 (see point 3).1. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 10:24 pm by Jim Sedor
Colorado – Puffy Jackets and Poinsettias: Gifts to Denver council members from DIA and other city offices draw ethics scrutinyDenver Post – Jon Murray | Published: 1/22/2018 A recent advisory opinion by the Denver Board of Ethics argued the prohibition on elected officials accepting or soliciting most items worth more than $25 – from givers with a city interest – could apply to gifts from city offices the same way it does to… [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
., June 22, 2017), an Ohio appellate court in a 2-1 decision, agreed with a trial court's decision in a case in which two competing factions of the Little Ettie Old Regular Baptist Church in Beaver, Ohio both claimed ownership of the church's property. [read post]
25 Jan 2022, 9:17 am by Jon Sands
Davis, No. 17-16511 (1-13-22)(Paez w/McKeown; dissent by Miller). [read post]
12 May 2014, 8:56 am
On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred (1) in concluding that it could not seek a declaratory judgment against Sampson because General Statutes § 8-200 (a) does not confer aggrievement on the plaintiff as a contract purchaser under an executory contract of sale; (2) in denying it a permanent injunction enjoining Bridgeport from conveying title to a parcel of land located at 22-96 Williston Street, hereinafter referred to as the Williston Street parcel,… [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 9:30 am by EEM
(Refugees International, Feb. 2015) [text]Does Domestic Violence Constitute Valid Ground to Claim Refugee Status? [read post]
22 May 2023, 1:00 am by CAFE
What is the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” and why does it matter? [read post]
22 May 2023, 1:00 am by CAFE
What is the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” and why does it matter? [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 7:35 am by Howard Friedman
Plaintiff has failed to prove that it was clearly established at the relevant time that the Doe Defendants were barred from (1) attempting to distinguish between religious and secular objections to a vaccine or (2) in that effort, denying exemptions to a state-mandated vaccine mandate to employees who expressed ostensibly religious objections to the use of fetal cells in the development of the vaccine. [read post]
8 Oct 2024, 9:08 pm by Howard Knopf
John Doe 1 (Indigo Kills Kids), 2024 FC 1465 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k73h2> The preliminary interim injunction may erroneously muddle TM law with some  doubtful Canadian copyright law. [read post]