Search for: "STATE v. KAUFFMAN"
Results 21 - 40
of 56
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Dec 2011, 6:23 pm
A good example of this happened in Jennifer Kauffman v. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 8:00 am
Kellman v. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 5:35 am
See Edwards v. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 12:01 pm
By Dennis Crouch Typhoon Touch Tech. v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 9:57 am
Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 7:31 am
"So, here we have an apparent conflict between stated preferences and revealed preferences. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 11:03 am
In Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2007, 11:19 am
He also noted other cases involving different-sex couples where courts bound non-biological parents to support obligations, including a recent ruling by the state's highest court, Shondel J. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2022, 10:53 am
Similarly, in a recent class action captioned Kauffman v. [read post]
30 Aug 2014, 10:42 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
2 Sep 2014, 10:45 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 10:46 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 10:42 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 10:52 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
13 Sep 2014, 10:41 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 2:10 pm
See, e.g., Brosius, 278 F.3d at 245 (stating that "our inquiry in a military habeas case may not go further than our inquiry in a state habeas case" and assuming, for the sake of argument, that the deferential standard of 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) was applicable to the substantive determinations of military courts); Kauffman v. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 8:29 am
Blake State Representative Dist. 20, Pos. 1 – Corinne Tobeck State Representative Dist. 20, Pos. 2 – Uncontested State Representative Dist. 21, Pos. 1 – Mary Helen Roberts State Representative Dist. 21, Pos. 2 – Marko Liias State Representative Dist. 22, Pos. 1 – Steve Robinson State Representative Dist. 22, Pos. 2 – Sam Hunt / Chris Reykdal State Representative Dist. 23, Pos. 1 – Sherry… [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 5:26 pm
Justice Paul Pfeifer, writing for the majority in Kauffman Racing Equip. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 10:07 am
Title: Estalita v. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 8:14 am
In a recent blog, we covered the pivotal decision in Javier v. [read post]
