Search for: "State v. Porting" Results 381 - 400 of 2,095
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Apr 2009, 3:38 pm
A Port Washington, N.Y., lawyer, James M. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 1:15 pm by Matthew Kolken
District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 1:43 pm by Victoria Clark
District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. [read post]
4 May 2011, 1:52 pm by Walter Olson
” And another state law requires that school districts field buses with capacity to seat every eligible child every day, which means that in districts like Port Washington, L.I., where many eligible children come to school by other means, buses routinely travel half full, at an unneeded cost the Port Washington superintendent estimates at $2 million a year. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 3:37 pm by McNabb Associates, P.C.
ARTICLE V (1) Neither of the Contracting Parties shall be bound to deliver up its own nationals under this Treaty but the executive authority of each Contracting Party shall have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion, it considers that it is proper to do so. (2) For the purposes of this Article - (a) a reference to the executive authority of a Contracting Party shall, in the case of Australia, be construed as a reference to the Attorney-General of Australia; (b) Australian… [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 6:51 am by tracey
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Faith Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] EWCA Civ 907 (29 July 2011) Suckrajh, R (on the application of) v The Asylum & Immigration Tribunal & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 938 (29 July 2011) Iqbal v Ahmed [2011] EWCA Civ 900 (29 July 2011) Hayes v Merseyside Police [2011] EWCA Civ 911 (29 July 2011) Austin & Ors v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 928 (29 July 2011) Modi… [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 4:53 am by GGCSMB&R
Replacement of parts that routinely wear out is considered maintenance, outside the purview of this section (see Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. [read post]