Search for: "State v. Harrington" Results 381 - 400 of 465
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Apr 2010, 3:18 pm by Gene Quinn
On April 1, 2010, Judge Terry Means of the United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling in Highmark, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2010, 2:30 pm by Steve Statsinger
There are also three summary orders of interest.United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 1:34 pm by Meg Martin
Summary of Decision issued March 22, 2010Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.Case Name: Singer v. [read post]
13 Mar 2010, 6:08 pm by Stephen Page
The Full Court dismissed the appeal on this point, saying that Justice Rose had not erred in the exercise of discretion.Stephen Page, Harrington Family Lawyers, Brisbane spage@harringtonfamilylawyers.com 61(7) 3221 9544 [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 7:09 am by Anna Christensen
Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog covers the Court’s grant of certiorari earlier this week in Harrington v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 7:28 am by Lyle Denniston
  That issue was raised by the state of California in Harrington v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 7:07 am by Erin Miller
Humphries (09-350) and  Harrington v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 6:39 am by Adam Chandler
”) At the Volokh Conspiracy, John Elwood writes about a petition that has been relisted twice, Harrington v. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 2:20 pm by Erin Miller
United States Docket: 09-342 Issues: (1) What constitutes the proper denominator in the takings fraction under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 11:41 am by John Elwood
Humphries, 09–350 (relisted on 1/8/10, 1/15, and, apparently, 1/22), and Harrington v. [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 7:34 am by John Elwood
Yesterday the Supreme Court granted petitioners' motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46 in the spellcheck-challenging Pottawattamie County v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 1:28 pm by Stephen Page
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]