Search for: "Cancel v. City of Providence"
Results 341 - 360
of 447
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Nov 2011, 6:42 am
Gameologist Group, LLC v. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 11:18 am
Zambada-Niebla met voluntarily with the government agents in Mexico City in the presence of Mr. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 6:12 am
Our policy is to offer a cancellation at any time for any unused tickets up to 4 hours prior to the drawing. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 3:01 am
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 6:42 pm
WAGNER, Chief of Police of the City of Hollywood, Florida, MICHAEL J. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 4:00 am
Read the decision at: Associated Developers Ltd. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 7:00 am
In Filarsky v. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 6:13 am
Farina v. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 4:25 am
: 09-076/09-090/09-091 Superior Fine Papers Inc. v. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 10:55 pm
R (JG and MB ) v. [read post]
6 Aug 2011, 2:27 pm
Co. v. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 5:23 pm
” See: Gomes v. [read post]
24 Jul 2011, 2:38 pm
” (City of Dinuba v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 3:00 am
Aromino v Van Tassel ; 2011 NY Slip Op 51058(U) ; Decided on June 6, 2011 ; Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Richmond County ; Straniere, J. points out a plethora. [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 8:01 pm
Great news for employees and volunteers of rescues and shelters — thanks to the recent case of Van Dusen v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 10:00 pm
Justice Blake considered the relevant principles to be applied in relation to the PSEDs, as summarised in R(Boyejo & Ors) v Barnett LBC and Smith v Portsmouth CC [2009] EWHC (Admin) 755. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 7:03 pm
Newport News Holdings Corporation v. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 9:30 pm
(Or, at the very least, such a claim would have had to run through catch-all substantive due process and City of Sacramento v. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 1:27 pm
(Even exclusion based on fear of violent reaction might well be unconstitutional, even in a limited public forum, see Sonnier v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 3:30 am
Citing Engoren v County of Nassau, 163 AD2d 520, leave to appeal denied 77 NY2d 805, the court said that Section 63(1) provides job security to a permanent employee who is transferred or promoted to a position in which he or she is required to serve, but does not satisfactorily complete, a probationary period. [read post]
