Search for: "STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY" Results 3001 - 3020 of 9,018
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Feb 2008, 12:36 pm
The recent New Jersey Supreme Court case of State v. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 10:41 am by Kevin M. Mazza, Esq.
Only several months ago I wrote a blog discussing the then state-of-the-law in New Jersey in regards to palimony and the ability of unmarried cohabitants to enforce unwritten promises of support. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 5:45 am
 391, 859 A.2d 364 (New Jersey Supreme Court 2004).State v. [read post]
22 Mar 2018, 8:49 am by Nancy E. Halpern, D.V.M.
’ In addition to animal health issues, EHM outbreaks can result in lawsuits, as evidenced by the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Ass’n v. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 2:04 pm by Ronald Mann
First, none of the causes of action that Manning presents seeks to enforce any liability or duty created by the Act, because they are causes of action created by New Jersey law, providing recoveries specified by New Jersey law, as a remedy for malfeasance defined by New Jersey law. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 5:55 pm
New Jersey) used the "Bloomberg Law" citation when it cited to a number of unreported cases. [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 3:56 pm by Pennsylvania Employment Lawyer
 Covid-19 Pandemic Class Action Lawsuit Statistics - Wage and Hour Class Actions Most Common Covid Case of The Week - Wage and Hour Claims Added to Retaliation Claim - Aguayo v. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 5:48 am by David Snyder
New Jersey requires a condemning authority to engage in “bona fide pre-litigation negotiations” prior to condemning property. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 5:16 pm by Ray Beckerman
John Does 1-110, a New Jersey case, the Court has denied the plaintiff's motion for discovery, on the ground that the plaintiff had not submitted a discovery plan which takes into account the Court's concerns about ensnaring, and burdening, innocent people:Plaintiff fails to define John Does 1-110 in its complaint other than to state that “[e]ach Defendant is known to Plaintiff only by an IP address. [read post]