Search for: "Waits v. State"
Results 3361 - 3380
of 10,689
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Aug 2012, 4:00 am
Noting that the applicant had testified that he failed to request a hearing within 30 days “because he thought he needed to wait until his summer employment ended to do so, and he stated that he received advice to that effect from Department of Labor employees following the initial denial of his application for benefits,” the Appellate Division held that “neither claimant's confusion regarding the two notices … nor the erroneous advice from the… [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 3:30 am
Wait, there’s a song called “Commas“? [read post]
9 Sep 2007, 8:01 pm
Altana Pharma AG and Wyeth v. [read post]
20 Feb 2007, 10:52 am
In Shadday, Miranda v. [read post]
5 May 2015, 9:24 am
Additional Resources: L.A. restaurants push for tips to count toward minimum wage, April 19, 2015, LA Times More Blog Entries: Arlington v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 12:00 am
Supreme Court, and both sides have vowed to take Perry v. [read post]
20 Apr 2014, 12:14 pm
TAYLOR, P.A., Appellant, v. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 12:32 pm
See United States v. [read post]
27 Nov 2022, 11:03 am
As usual, we will just have to wait and see. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 7:37 am
Plunkett, which was decided recently in the New York State Court of Appeals. [read post]
6 Jan 2021, 8:47 am
Arizona: Ward v. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 1:15 pm
The couple were placed on the waiting list for rehousing and they were eventually relocated to suitable accommodation at the end of 2007.The Court noted that there was no right under Article 8 to be provided with a home (Chapman v UK) except in the limited circumstances where an applicant’s serious personal circumstances created a positive obligation on the State to act. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 1:15 pm
The couple were placed on the waiting list for rehousing and they were eventually relocated to suitable accommodation at the end of 2007.The Court noted that there was no right under Article 8 to be provided with a home (Chapman v UK) except in the limited circumstances where an applicant’s serious personal circumstances created a positive obligation on the State to act. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 7:23 am
United States, 465 U. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 11:03 am
Wait! [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 5:57 am
Palmer, who was part of the four-to-three majority ruling in favor of the city in the eminent domain case Kelo v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 12:56 pm
Under "New Jersey," we noted that the state’s supreme court had specifically approved the practice in Stempler v. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 7:08 am
This is stated in, Kennedy v. [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 4:39 am
Additional Resources:Harmon v. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 1:26 pm
--Court: United States District Court for the District of MarylandOpinion Date: 4/30/10Cite: Rihani v. [read post]
