Search for: "State v. P. B."
Results 4101 - 4120
of 6,781
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Aug 2012, 1:52 am
Marilyn Stowe reviews the recent cases of NHS Trust v Baby X and L v P (Paternity Test: Child’s Objection). [read post]
29 Jan 2007, 10:39 pm
P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of complaint for monopolization, infringement, and breach of contract; discussion of a patent relating to raw pipe with specified diameters and fitted connectors (U.S. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 4:53 pm
V. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 8:00 am
On February 4, 2024, the Defendant filed two Motions to Dismiss, a jurisdictional challenge under 12(b)(1) and a failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6). [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 1:05 pm
[b]ut states cannot require a procedure that is inconsistent with the FAA, even if it is desirable for unrelated reasons. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 12:29 pm
Leach Builders, LLC v. [read post]
11 Jan 2022, 12:03 pm
[v].) [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 10:30 am
"McIndoe v. [read post]
12 Oct 2016, 12:47 pm
PHH v. [read post]
25 May 2009, 7:15 am
No. 31 September Term 2003 (Motion for Stay of Execution and Supporting Exhibits, Exhibit 9, Appendix B, filed June 1, 2004, motion denied, State v. [read post]
7 Aug 2016, 2:35 pm
On the engagement of Art 8, Kugathas v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 31 was followed, per Seldley LJ: “Mr. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 9:01 pm
Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 4:08 pm
State of Indiana (NFP) Johnny P. [read post]
5 Nov 2023, 11:16 am
, 155 P.3d 537, 538 (Colo. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 9:35 pm
Committee Report on Court Reorganization [1962], Family Ct.Act, p. 2, McKinney Session Laws, 1962, p. 3430). [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 8:55 am
Karasik In EEOC v. [read post]
10 May 2019, 12:59 pm
Co. v. [read post]
20 Oct 2006, 1:49 pm
§ 800.3(b). [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 8:07 am
That the voters explicitly imposed a procedural two-thirds vote requirement on themselves in [Article 13 C, Section 2(d)] is evidence that they did not implicitly impose a procedural timing requirement in subdivision (b).8 The court called this quote “ambiguous dictum” at best, and stated “this language appears to imply that the voters imposed the two-thirds voting requirement on themselves only with respect to taxes placed on the ballot by local government (e.g.,… [read post]
