Search for: "State v. Court of Appeals, Division I"
Results 3521 - 3540
of 4,097
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2009, 10:04 am
(see example below) The Department states this interpretation is supported by a decision issued by the Ohio Supreme Court- Columbus City School District v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 10:16 pm
The Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) affirmed an interesting order of the trial court that had a significant effect on the constituency of a class in a settlement. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 1:28 pm
These matterswere previously dealt with exclusively bystate courts under state law however thenew Part VIIIAB puts these mattersunder the jurisdiction of the Family Court and theFederal MagistratesCourt.2.34 These amendments did not apply to termination agreements. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 11:51 am
State, 2008 WL 4683960 (Texas Court of Appeals 2008); Grabein v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 12:52 pm
I. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 4:48 am
He lost on that argument because, as I explained in an earlier post, he based it on a decision of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey; the problem was, as I explained in the earlier post, that a decision of a state court is not binding on a federal court. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 3:00 am
I previously reported on a March 2009 appellate decision in a case called Yemini v. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 8:13 pm
As I stated previously, it important that the parties understand that New York does not make it easy for someone to prepare and execute a valid separation agreement. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 5:23 am
In Matter of Goldstein v. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 5:23 am
In Matter of Goldstein v. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 10:30 am
" # # # Matter of Goldstein v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 7:02 pm
The court could have disposed of this appeal simply by ruling that an early or premature follow-up verification request is of no legal consequence. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 7:21 am
The following is a copy of the Court of Appeals decision and I will blog the Supreme Court’s decision once it is published: 143 Wash.App. 373, 177 P.3d 769 Court of Appeals of Washington,Division 1. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 6:37 am
As for disclosure, the Delaware Supreme Court (as constituted at that time), in Malone v. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 5:25 am
Finally, the Appellate Division has given some guidance in the recently published matter of Gonzalez-Posse v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 4:59 am
The Court of First Instance dismissed Mr Torresan's appeal. * It noted that cannabis has three meanings: (i) a textile plant the market in which is regulated within the Community framework and the production of which is subject to very strict legislation as regards the content of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient of cannabis; (ii) a narcotic which is prohibited in a great number of Member States; (iii) the possible therapeutic use of which is… [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 2:43 am
So I don’t at all question the integrity, acumen, or commitment of our appellate court judges. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 2:52 pm
I. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 5:53 pm
The Court of Appeals (Katzmann, Raggi and Keenan [D.J.] says no. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 2:02 am
Indeed, the California Supreme Court expressly stated in Thomson v. [read post]
