Search for: "MATTER OF MENTAL HEALTH OF S J"
Results 321 - 340
of 600
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2016, 6:07 pm
Mariner Health, 994 So. 2d 1051 (Fla., 2008). [read post]
16 Jul 2016, 8:59 am
Fortunately for my mental health and your reading queue, I’m pleased to report that today’s case has better–and more succinct–news. [read post]
15 Jul 2016, 6:31 am
Matter of M-J-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 773 (BIA 2016): In another case displaying the Board’s focus on mental health issues in immigration court, the Board stated that an immigration judge has the discretion to determine the appropriate safeguards in a case under of Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2011). [read post]
15 Jul 2016, 6:31 am
Matter of M-J-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 773 (BIA 2016): In another case displaying the Board’s focus on mental health issues in immigration court, the Board stated that an immigration judge has the discretion to determine the appropriate safeguards in a case under of Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2011). [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 12:34 pm
Brett Rosner of WSB TV reports that John Wayne Connor killed his friend J. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 5:00 am
May 18, 2016 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:02 pm
It held that the Elder Abuse Act does not require the existence of a custodial relationship in order for the plaintiff to establish a cause of action for neglect.[2] The court also rejected defendants’ contention that the trial court should determine, as a matter of law, whether defendants’ conduct constituted professional negligence rather than neglect. [read post]
14 May 2016, 2:59 pm
We hear this from skilled professionals who suffer from severe mental health problems and, as a result, believe they remain unable to return to the stress and strain associated with the requirements of their prior profession. [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 1:00 am
On Tuesday 26 April it will hear the appeal of Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice whether the recall of the appellant to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983, s 42(3), was unlawful and should entitle him to relief, because he was not given adequate reasons at the time the recall warrant was executed, nor within 72 hours. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 5:00 am
March 7, 2016 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 5:01 am
(Palgrave Macmillan) (co-authored with Alison J. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 4:02 am
Linda J. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 4:43 pm
Here is the Haynes and Boone firm’s memorandum. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 2:54 pm
Red Lobster, 550 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), 4 to 5 months of trauma; Brevard County Mental Health Center v. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 2:40 pm
There was also guidance issued in relation to the approval of consent orders – judges were reminded care was needed even when parties appeared to have agreed matters. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 7:40 am
The second reason for the Court granting relief was that Shatrugan Chauhan laid down that a prisoner cannot be executed if mentally ill (para 259, guideline 9) and Bhullar’s mental health report indicated that he was suffering from acute mental illness. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 8:29 am
Jan. 26, 2016), the court (Fallon, J.) cited both new Rule 26’s heightened proportionality emphasis, as well as privacy issues, in rejecting the plaintiffs’ discovery demand for the personnel files of a large number of the defendant’s employees. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 1:49 pm
Finally, the main event: the Court apparently relisted in two new cases this week, both of which implicate interesting First Amendment issues, and both of which will leave close watchers of the Court’s docket with a sense of déjà vu. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 6:52 am
Commissioner of Correction, supra.The Appellate Court went on to explain that [a]s a threshold matter, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying her petition for certification to appeal. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 11:26 am
No. 36, at pp. 158-59 S.C.R., [page254] Dickson J. adopted the purposive method of Charter interpretation and observed that the interests engaged by s. 8 are not simply an extension of the concept of trespass, but rather are grounded in an independent right to privacy held by all citizens. [read post]
