Search for: "IN RE ANDREWS MINORS" Results 441 - 460 of 611
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Mar 2012, 7:34 am by Jim Walker
  Photo credit:  Andrew Lock via CNN iReport   [read post]
14 Mar 2012, 12:43 pm by Todd Ruger
The fight over judicial nominees “is exactly what makes Americans sick of what we’re doing,” said Sen. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 1:52 am by Sam Murrant
The right to free speech is stated to be highly important, and protective of the minority as well as the majority. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 5:39 pm by Law Lady
Marshall does not apply to claims at issue -- Even if it were determined that bankruptcy court lacks authority to enter final orders because trustee's fraudulent transfer claims are merely “related to” bankruptcy, court may still enter final orders because Section 157(c)(2), provides that a bankruptcy judge can issue final judgments in non-core proceedings if parties consent, and IRS explicitly and impliedly consented to bankruptcy court's final resolution of claims at issue --… [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 2:00 am by Steve Lombardi
I’ve taken a week off from blogging to catch up on legal work for paying clients. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 5:00 am by Michael Burleigh
  While substantially the same, there are some minor differences between NYSE and NASDAQ rules that are worth noting. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 8:55 pm by Holly Doremus
“And I hear it gets even more complicated once they’re smoked. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 9:11 am by Lovechilde
In an interview with Time's Andrew Rotherham, Bush heaps on the superlatives that no one else is applying to NCLB. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 8:00 am by University of Virginia School of Law
1Ls and 2Ls, we're doing something new this year to get you ready for interviews with public service employers at our annual February Public Service OGI. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 1:50 pm by Geoffrey Rapp
Masteralexis, If you’re hurt, where is home? [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 3:30 am by Jasmine Joseph
The possibility looms that a state employer might on the one hand be required by Title VII to eliminate facially race-neutral procedures or policies that have a disparate impact on minorities, and on the other hand be constitutionally forbidden to discard or change those policies implemented to benefit those minorities. [read post]