Search for: "State v. Bolds" Results 301 - 320 of 1,540
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Apr 2014, 9:16 am
The state, of course, continues to make the bold claim that same-sex marriage might eventually hurt children raised in heterosexual homes. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 2:13 am
  As detailed here at SCOTUSblog, Tuesday afternoon the Supreme Court will hear argument in Oregon v. [read post]
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 913; Weinberg v. [read post]
The case names of the newest decisions start with Section 3 and are denoted by bold italic fonts. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 8:12 am by Raymond Millien
On March 20, 2012, in an opinion written by Justice Breyer, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Mayo v. [read post]
4 Apr 2018, 10:30 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
The case names of the newest decisions start with Section 3 and are denoted by bold italic fonts. 1. [read post]
” The Actual Bill The text of the bill states that no public library shall receive state aid if the library “allows minors to access age-inappropriate sexual materials. [read post]
20 Mar 2010, 4:38 am by Jon L. Gelman
While material in the record before us could support a different result, substantial evidence exists for the Board's determination that claimant's weight gain was caused by his compensable injuries and that gastric bypass surgery “would assist in [his] recovery” ( Matter of Bolds v. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 3:58 am by Susan Brenner
BP sent MIX approximately five additional Legal Hold Notices, including one dated on or about May 5, 2010, which stated on the cover, in bold and underlined type, that instant messages and text messages needed to be preserved. 7. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Appellate Division's ruling states:"The article 78 court correctly determined, upon consideration of all the facts, that respondents' denial of petitioner's application for reinstatement to his former position with NYCHA was not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Roberts v Gavin, 96 AD3d 669, 671 [1st Dept 2012]). [read post]