Search for: "State v. Franc" Results 421 - 440 of 2,813
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jan 2021, 6:37 pm by Shannon O'Hare
Nonetheless, as Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, stated, “the good news is, Congress is not going to be the Grinch”. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 4:16 am by INFORRM
On this point Mr Eadie referred to the fact that there is no requirement of pre-notification in many Convention statesFrance, Germany, Sweden, Hungary, the Netherlands and Belgium are all examples. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 12:23 am
The case pending in California is an action in chief, while the request in France concerns a preliminary injunction. [read post]
6 Jun 2010, 10:13 am by Bartolus
In its judgment in Case C-73/08 Nicolas Bressol and others v. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 3:28 am by Amy Howe
In the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews next month’s oral arguments in the cellphone privacy cases, United States v. [read post]
26 May 2023, 12:20 pm by Joel R. Brandes
To elaborate, the Sixth Circuit compared the children’s perceptions of and experiences in both France and the United States because the parties alternated living between the two for extended periods of time. [read post]
9 May 2022, 5:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Finally, opined the Appellate Division, Petitioners' membership reclassification did not violate Article V, §7 of the New York State Constitution which, in pertinent part, provides that "After July first, nineteen hundred forty, membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or of a civil division thereof shall be a contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired", since "petitioners were never… [read post]
9 May 2022, 5:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Finally, opined the Appellate Division, Petitioners' membership reclassification did not violate Article V, §7 of the New York State Constitution which, in pertinent part, provides that "After July first, nineteen hundred forty, membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or of a civil division thereof shall be a contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired", since "petitioners were never… [read post]
9 May 2022, 5:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Finally, opined the Appellate Division, Petitioners' membership reclassification did not violate Article V, §7 of the New York State Constitution which, in pertinent part, provides that "After July first, nineteen hundred forty, membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or of a civil division thereof shall be a contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired", since "petitioners were never… [read post]
9 May 2022, 5:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Finally, opined the Appellate Division, Petitioners' membership reclassification did not violate Article V, §7 of the New York State Constitution which, in pertinent part, provides that "After July first, nineteen hundred forty, membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or of a civil division thereof shall be a contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired", since "petitioners were never… [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 7:10 am by Nabiha Syed
Lopez and United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 9:01 am by Steve Hall
Prosecutorial Accountability Project from Bruce France on Vimeo. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 9:45 am
If Licensee acquires the Software in France, Germany or Japan, this License Agreement is governed by the laws of the country in which Licensee acquired the Software. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 2:00 am
The gist of the matter is that Google will introduce a notice-and-take-down procedure in response to the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union this March in the Google AdWords case, Joined Cases C-236, 237 and 238/08 Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier; Google France v Viaticum Luteciel; Google France v CNRRH Pierre? [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 3:51 am by John Day
In Goodyear Dunlap Tires Operations, S.A. v. [read post]