Search for: "FAIR v. THE STATE"
Results 3081 - 3100
of 30,472
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Feb 2016, 7:34 am
RUEDA, Appellant V. [read post]
19 Jun 2011, 11:11 am
State of Maryland v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 4:00 am
The case, Equal Rights Center and Archstone v. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 11:29 am
Police Dep’t v. [read post]
23 May 2013, 4:56 am
Waldon v. [read post]
14 Apr 2012, 8:07 am
On April 12, 2012, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided Price v. [read post]
3 Dec 2012, 5:48 am
AC33183 - State v. [read post]
22 May 2011, 6:12 am
On Thursday, NMCCA will hear oral argument in United States v. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 4:08 pm
United States v. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 7:37 pm
The Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in Sorrell v. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 12:27 pm
May 1, 2023) and SEC v. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 3:07 am
Jernagin v. [read post]
18 Jul 2024, 8:37 am
In 1995, in Celotex v. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 7:39 am
Martel Building Ltd. v Canada, [1997] 129 FTR 249 (FCTD), revd [1998] 163 DLR (4th) 504 (FCA), leave to appeal refused, 2000 SCC 60, [2000] 2 SCR 860, online: LexUM http://scc.lexum.org/en/2000/2000scc60/2000scc60.html Facts Note: This case deals with the possibility of a tort action in negligence for breach of a duty of care during negotiation of a contract (specifically during the solicitation and evaluation of tendered bids). [read post]
27 Sep 2023, 7:08 am
United States law and culture have yet to find a constructive and fair way to talk about rape, especially in “non-paradigmatic” rape cases like acquaintance or date rape. [read post]
27 Sep 2023, 7:08 am
United States law and culture have yet to find a constructive and fair way to talk about rape, especially in “non-paradigmatic” rape cases like acquaintance or date rape. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 10:13 am
United States, No. 18-1851 C (Ct. [read post]
20 May 2019, 12:29 pm
Government work is tough:"The Department of Social Services is the state agency responsible for determining, through its Disability Determination Service Division, the medical eligibility of disabled Californians who are seeking federal Social Security benefits or state Medi-Cal benefits. [read post]
23 Nov 2017, 3:44 am
Perhaps surprisingly, the Court unequivocally departs from its decision in R (Kaiyam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] UKSC 66 (decided less than three years earlier) to endorse the narrower understanding of the obligation set down by the ECtHR in James v UK (App no. 25119/09). [read post]
3 May 2007, 3:51 pm
Today the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision styled Gillespie v. [read post]
