Search for: "BERNARD v. STATE" Results 401 - 420 of 937
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm by Schachtman
That goal ultimately came to have bipartisan support in the United States, largely as a result of Selikoff’s advocacy. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 2:31 pm
The backlash against the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. [read post]
22 Aug 2014, 6:09 am
The case is Runberg, Inc. d/b/a Zephyrs v. [read post]
22 Aug 2014, 5:21 am by Timothy P. Flynn
 The Oakland County couple were one of more than 300 to get married in Michigan immediately following federal judge Bernard Friedman's March 21st ruling that struck down our state constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.The gay couple's attorney, University of Michigan Law Professor Julien Mortenson, was quoted in the Freep as saying, "the state cannot mandatorily divorce you. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 4:51 am by Timothy P. Flynn
 As is often the case with 3-judge panels, one jurist stays poker-faced; this time, it was Bush appointee, Judge Jeffery Sutton.Since the SCOTUS decision in United States v Windsor, nearly every state's federal court system has cultivated a same-sex marriage case, usually challenging the constitutionality of a state law that bans or limits the rights of same-sex couples. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 4:34 am by David DePaolo
She explained that Bernard had "contracted with an agency that promised to provide him an aide trained to manage his wife's condition," and by doing so, Bernard "paid to be relieved of a duty to protect the aide from the very risks she was retained to encounter. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 1:50 pm by Steve Delchin
Snyder, et al., Case No. 14-1341:  An appeal from a March 21, 2014 order by Judge Bernard A. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 3:53 pm by Hannah Kiddoo
Denman Jr. of San Antonio; Bernard Hirsh of Las Vegas, Nevada; and Milton H. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 6:00 am
Herbalife issued the following statement: Today's decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the FTC v. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 6:22 am by Jag
  Rule 16.5  concerns defences, and states that a defendant must state which allegations he admits, denies, and is unable to admit or deny and requires the claimant to prove (a non-admission). [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 6:22 am by Jag
  Rule 16.5  concerns defences, and states that a defendant must state which allegations he admits, denies, and is unable to admit or deny and requires the claimant to prove (a non-admission). [read post]