Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 4261 - 4280
of 15,305
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2012, 10:01 pm
A rule that, absent unusual circumstances, a parent's obligation is limited to the maximum SUNY tuition would be inconsistent with Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(c)(7). [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 2:00 am
Supreme Court’s South Dakota v. [read post]
7 Jun 2023, 12:14 pm
R. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 1:08 pm
The District Court credited Liquidia’s representations to the FDA that it would store treprostinil sodium between 2°C and 8°C, which falls outside of the District Court’s claim construction of “ambient temperature” as room temperature between 15°C to 30°C. [read post]
3 Sep 2024, 11:07 am
The court’s response is withering: “a self-policed rule does not suffer the same vagueness problems as a state-backed proscription. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 1:30 pm
Code § 3553(c), a sentencing court must state `the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 2:21 pm
Under 12(c), a court is supposed to decide [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 12:54 pm
Under 12(c), a court is supposed to decide [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 4:30 pm
B. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 12:06 pm
Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 1:48 pm
Interpreters applying synthetic incorporation under definition (C) rather than analytic incorporation under definition (B) to a particular question like the incorporation of the Second Amendment must do more than simply note that a particular right is in the Bill of Rights; they must do the sort of analysis undertaken by the Ninth Circuit panel opinion in Nordyke v. [read post]
10 Jun 2018, 9:46 am
” See United States v. [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 12:37 pm
Co. v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 9:00 am
Michel V. [read post]
24 Mar 2012, 9:47 am
Boggs v. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 7:41 am
Cir. 2008) (stating that “plaintiffs do not bear the burden of showing an impact on price” at the class certification stage); b) Schleicher v. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 2:39 pm
(Id., rules 8.272(b)(1)(A), 8.490(c).) [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 12:04 pm
GOV'T CODE § 22.225(b)(3), (c). [read post]
4 Jun 2009, 1:04 am
State: Here, the CCA held that a) habitations inherently provide notice that entry is forbidden; b) there is no need to plead the element of notice in a burglary indicment; and c) the lack of a notice requirement in the burglary indictment did not keep criminal trespass from being a lesser-included offense under Hall v. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 10:56 am
In its ruling in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. [read post]
