Search for: "In Re: General Order No. 115"
Results 281 - 300
of 354
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am
Various amendments were put forward at Committee stage that would have meant that before the court could make a possession order it would have to be satisfied that both the notice and review procedures had been followed AND that it was either reasonable to make a possession order, or that further ss.153A & 153B conduct, or just generally anti-social behaviour had occurred since the demotion order. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 9:44 am
If this position is a bit confusing, you’re not alone. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 6:38 am
When temperatures soared to 115 degrees in the baking Coachella Valley and an electrical fire killed the power for a month, her family couldn’t take any more. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 12:47 pm
Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), but it’s so old and out of date we’re not going to discuss it further.The current rule, articulated by two ironically named cases, International Shoe Co. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2010, 5:41 pm
Eugene Volokh (The Volokh Conspiracy) writes of Wisconsin family-court orders that a woman never again speak online about her ex-husband, and not speak online about his lawyer for four years: The injunctions strike me as patently and vastly overbroad, and therefore clearly unconstitutional. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 7:55 am
Jia became a full time real estate agent in November 2001 and has worked with Re/Max Crossroads Realty Inc. since October 2005 [read post]
28 Aug 2010, 5:02 am
The IPJur blog adds to the discussion that, in view of the many objections by the Advocates General, it presently is the most realistic scenario that the CJEU’s final decision closely resembles the Advocates General’s Statement, in which case a re-drafting of the proposal of the EU Council would be most painful with regard to the language issue and the requirement that the EPO Boards of Appeal “do not any longer see the blue sky over their heads”. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:26 pm
While the court has ordered entry of a permanent injunction against proponents, that permanent injunction does not require proponents to refrain from anything, as they are not (and cannot be) responsible for the application or regulation of California marriage law. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 9:48 pm
District Court for the District of Colorado decisions, were the subject of a November 2009 article in The Colorado Lawyer.13 That article noted that the procedural posture of the General Security coverage appeal was unusual insofar as it involved only insurers. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 3:26 pm
Stevens, 115 N.J. 289, 302 (1989)). [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 9:36 pm
[in] sections 115, 131, 135, and 157 of this title. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 5:43 pm
You’re trained to deal with such things, having worked with medical forces in Vietnam, and your kid seems fine? [read post]
11 May 2010, 11:01 am
(See generally this post for more on that decision.) [read post]
7 May 2010, 10:00 pm
But in general, here are the highlights: Kagan is uniformly regarded as extremely smart, having risen to two of the most prestigious positions in all of law: dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General. [read post]
3 May 2010, 1:17 pm
Balancing economic and health concerns, this order closes just those areas that are affected by oil. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 6:00 am
You're dead. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 6:52 am
Eric M. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 3:53 am
Does this - or is it meant to - describe (in order it sems to me of descending likelihood) eBay's listing service? [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 12:00 pm
"We're suing to hold the dealership responsible to the consumers who trusted them. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 11:44 am
We're just ahead of Texas. [read post]
