Search for: "State v. Record" Results 3781 - 3800 of 44,304
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Nov 2008, 11:44 am
  The Ohio Supreme court tackled that issue a year ago in State v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 2:30 pm by HeratyLaw
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ———————————–x BELLMER DOLLS, a Partnership, PETER MAVROGEORGIS, ANTHONY MALAT, and PETER SHEERIN, Plaintiffs, - v - : ASIM SHAIKH aka ASIM GRABOWSKI-SHAIKH, HUNGRY EYE RECORDS LLC, PUBCO, DANIEL SKIBRA, and : JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 7:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Viability of claims submitted after the legislative deadline for filing the claimCounty of Chemung v. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 11:06 am by Anna Christensen
Audio recordings of oral arguments in each of the following cases are now available (click on the case name to link to the audio recording): United States v. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 5:00 am by Randall Peterson
  Apache then sent a letter to Chevedden stating that he could further prove ownership by “a written statement from the record owner. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 12:08 pm
The government's complaint also alleges that Joliet's mayor and a specific city council member made on-record statements to both HUD and to the city council. [read post]
19 Oct 2007, 2:17 am
The dust is starting to settle in the widely publicised case of Bragg v. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 9:01 pm
“The Old” (2009; but often overlooked Section 317.114 of the Ohio Revised Code) sets forth the following requirements for recorded real estate documents:A) Computer font size of at least ten point (except Notary stamps, seals and signatures); B) Maximum paper size: 8 ½ x 14; Minimum paper size: 8 ½ x 11;C) Margins of 1 inch on each side of the page and on bottom;D) 3 inch margin on the top of the first page, reserved for recorder, auditor and engineer;1… [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 10:00 pm
” Since the officers failed to give proper notice of their “purpose” prior to entering the apartment, the AD1 thought the entry was unlawful, and that the New York County Supreme Court should have granted SJ’s motion to suppress the evidence retrieved and that the conviction thus needed to be reversed.That had to be suppressing.# # #DECISIONPeople v Jones [read post]