Search for: "State v. P. B."
Results 3221 - 3240
of 6,780
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jun 2014, 1:39 pm
Instead, the initial question on the merits is whether, notwithstanding the absence of any such legal duty, the state nevertheless imposes “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs," Thomas v. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 7:35 am
A recently published decision, Mendoza v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 8:33 am
P. 9(b). [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 5:58 am
Steven B. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 5:00 am
(SEC v. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 3:42 pm
So states the Georgia Court of Appeals McLaurin v. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 11:14 am
Bond v. [read post]
8 Jun 2014, 7:53 pm
The trial court, alas, erred in stating the relevant statistical concepts. [read post]
8 Jun 2014, 2:42 pm
It should be noted that two interests at stake — the needs of the child and the needs of the community — are presumptively entitled to equal weight akin to the rulings in Matter of Todd B., Matter of Timothy C., Matter of Pedro A., Matter of Aaron P. and Matter of Horan A. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 12:14 pm
IMS Health Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2653, 2659 (2011), and United States v. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 7:41 pm
Valley Land Co., P.2d 707, 708-10 (N.M. 1957) Ohio Hanna v. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 6:36 am
The second Ordinance seeks to amend the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act passed by Parliament earlier this year to carve out India’s 29th State- Telangana from the erstwhile undivided State of Andhra Pradesh.[2] This Ordinance makes certain amendments to the territories covered by the Khammam district under this State bifurcation law. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 6:05 am
” At the blog of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Lisa Soronen discusses the State and Local Legal Center’s amicus brief, as well as the issues at stake more broadly, in next Term’s North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 3:06 am
However, NDMC also cautioned that in spite of its evolutionary one-upmanship over the other UTs, Delhi remains a UT and should not be equated with a State [p.31]. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 2:33 pm
ADELBERG, Appellant, v. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 4:43 am
P. 9(b), which means that the complaint needs “the ‘who, what, when, where, and how’ of the events at issue,” must “inject[] precision and some measure of substantiation into their allegations of fraud,” and “must allege who made a misrepresentation to whom and the general content of the misrepresentation. [read post]
1 Jun 2014, 4:04 am
Roberts v. [read post]
29 May 2014, 1:05 pm
Zerkel, 900 P.2d 744 [Alaska App.1995] and the State v. [read post]
29 May 2014, 5:41 am
P. 60(b). [read post]
28 May 2014, 7:41 am
In Petrella v. [read post]
