Search for: "Young v. State of Maine" Results 301 - 320 of 720
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 May 2017, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
His two main executive orders on immigration, his signature issue, have been justifiably blocked by the courts.Meanwhile, Trump’s foreign policy actions have thus far consisted chiefly of gratuitously insulting foreign leaders and waffling on campaign promises (such as labeling China a currency manipulator and keeping the United States out of the Syrian civil war). [read post]
30 Apr 2017, 7:53 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Shabas stated, This is a significant milestone. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 7:48 am by Michael K. Grife, Esq.
In an exciting win for Florida personal injury plaintiffs and their physicians, the state’s Supreme Court issued a recent landmark decision in the case of Worley v. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 7:48 am by Michael K. Grife, Esq.
In an exciting win for Florida personal injury plaintiffs and their physicians, the state’s Supreme Court issued a recent landmark decision in the case of Worley v. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 10:14 am by Bernadette Duran-Brown
  If you recall, the Supreme Court granted review of Young’s Market and tied it to the fate of Property Reserve stating that “Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of related issues in Property Reserve v. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 1:19 pm by Andrew Hamm
Ginsburg borrowed from her dissent in Shelby County v. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
This is particularly so given the Supreme Court’s holding in 1989 in Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 4:00 am by Guest Blogger
“The reasonable person”, wrote Justices Claire L’Heureux-Dubé and Beverley McLachlin in R. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2017, 4:36 pm by INFORRM
You can read the main decision on BAILII here : X v X (application for a financial remedies order) [2016] EWHC 1995 (Fam) (26 July 2016). [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 3:25 am by Xandra Kramer
Thus, in Young v Anglo American South Africa Limited, the Court of Appeal ruled that the powerful influence of the parent company does not by itself causes legal consequences, and should not have any impact on the determination of the domicile of the subsidiaries. [read post]