Search for: "Head v. Head"
Results 3081 - 3100
of 19,775
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Dec 2024, 6:00 am
* V.5.7 of the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City of New York provides, in pertinent part, "... [read post]
10 Dec 2024, 6:00 am
* V.5.7 of the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City of New York provides, in pertinent part, "... [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 6:21 am
But yesterday at dawn, four men attacked him and threw numerous punches to his head and face. [read post]
3 Dec 2012, 4:00 am
In Mora v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 4:05 am
In Landor v. [read post]
13 Jul 2013, 10:04 am
In State v. [read post]
14 Jun 2021, 2:44 pm
In the case of Clauss-Walton v. [read post]
3 Aug 2013, 5:49 pm
See: Mancuso v. [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 10:31 am
At oral argument counsel noted that in Oncale v. [read post]
22 Feb 2013, 7:00 am
See United States v. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 12:50 pm
That was an issue before the Business Court in Brady v. [read post]
13 May 2025, 10:00 pm
In the case of G. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2012, 4:00 am
In Mora v. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 10:30 am
Supreme Court last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
28 May 2018, 9:30 pm
The Court did so because the Justices sought to head off sectional conflict over fugitive slaves. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 3:19 am
In a kinder, gentler world, the words "you're under arrest" without any accompanying cuffs or restraints may mean you're free to head off with impunity at a measured pace to the nearest coffee shop, or tree top, but in Oregon the words "you're under arrest" means YOU'RE UNDER ARREST AND IN CUSTODY so stop calculating that escape route and forget about that Freedom Road Quickstep maneuver.From the OJD Court of Appeal July 8, 2009, Media Release (or… [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 4:11 am
With the recent emergence of high profile cases such as Nokia v iPhone, this could see patent cases in the mobile phone industry for some time to come. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 8:00 am
Morley v. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 8:50 am
In the consolidated appeals of Lameau v City of Royal Oak, Nos. 290059 and 292006 (the published opinion shows a picture of the sidewalk at issue), the Court of Appeals affirmed in a 2-1 decision. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 5:14 am
Case information: Spent v. [read post]