Search for: "Mays v. State"
Results 3121 - 3140
of 118,999
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 May 2012, 6:38 am
State v. [read post]
3 Jun 2021, 7:43 am
(relisted after the May 20 and May 27 conferences) Hernandez v. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 9:29 am
Arizona v. [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 5:37 pm
--Court: Court of Appeals of South CarolinaOpinion Date: 9/14/11Cite: Team IA, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 8:39 am
The Ninth Circuit recently held in United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 7:58 am
., v. [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 6:43 pm
Supreme Court held in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 6:43 pm
Supreme Court held in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 12:20 pm
Providing legal representation and indemnification of State officers and employeesSamuels v Vacco, Appellate Division, 251 AD2s 10Section 17 of the Public Officers Law provides that a state officer or employee is entitled to representation by the Attorney General if the individual is sued as a result of his or her performing official duties. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 2:13 pm
Keller et al. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2022, 9:10 am
Under this state-by-state patchwork, the United States may develop an abortion regime that starts to look more like Europe’s. [read post]
25 Jun 2022, 9:10 am
Under this state-by-state patchwork, the United States may develop an abortion regime that starts to look more like Europe’s. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 9:17 am
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in State v. [read post]
9 Jun 2012, 12:00 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 9, 2012 sent the case titled GPX International Tire Corp. v. [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 7:01 pm
James In the case of Collins v. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 6:52 am
The Court of Appeals has ruled that class of prisoners in Connecticut may sue state officials for exposing them to radon gas, a carcinogen, and were deliberately indifferent to their safety.The case is Vega v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 2:45 am
In KPMG LLP v. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 8:24 am
The People's Republic of Bangladesh v. [read post]
4 Jun 2009, 8:43 pm
This March, it overruled federal pre-emption of state law in Wyeth v. [read post]
18 Aug 2009, 6:00 am
The Hiestand complaint alleges (among other things) a UCL "unlawful" prong claim predicated on violation of Vehicle Code section 22651, which reads, in part: A peace officer ... of a city, county, or jurisdiction of a state agency in which a vehicle is located, may remove a vehicle located within the territorial limits in which the officer ... may act, under the following circumstances: .... [read post]