Search for: "Parent v. State" Results 3121 - 3140 of 13,129
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Apr 2012, 3:17 am by admin
” The 1926 Supreme Court decision in The City of Euclid v. [read post]
28 May 2009, 6:39 am
Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} In an opinion issued on Tuesday,… [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 7:56 am by Eric Goldman
The takeaway from this case isn’t novel, but it’s easy-to-state and obviously bears repeating. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
In addition, the order provided that, effective December 22, 2015, such New York City personnel subject to the order would be entitled to 30 days paid parental leave (PPL) every 12-month period for the birth of a child, adoption, or foster care. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 4:22 am by Peter Mahler
Delaware: Chancery Court Invalidates LLC Manager’s Removal Based on Unauthorized Amendment of Operating Agreement In DiDonato v Campus Eye Management, LLC, decided earlier this year by Vice Chancellor Will, the plaintiff sued under Section 18-110 of the Delaware LLC Act for a declaration that the majority member of the parent company of the defendant management services organization (MSO) improperly removed him as the MSO’s sole manager pursuant to an invalid… [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 12:09 pm
 The trustees (the parents) don't have to distribute any money if they don't want to. [read post]
24 May 2011, 7:25 am by Nexsen Pruet
The opinion issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in that consolidated appeal is known as Brown v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 3:07 pm by Mark Ashton
The implications can be said to be national in scope as individual states step forward with their own interpretations of  Dobbs v. [read post]