Search for: "State v. C. G. B." Results 441 - 460 of 2,341
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Mar 2010, 5:56 am by NL
On 31 March, the review officer wrote a ‘minded to’ letter stating that she was minded to find Mr G intentionally homeless due to non-payment of rent, frivolously spending his capital from the sale of his house and voluntarily leaving the rented accommodation. [read post]
12 Mar 2017, 5:56 pm by Josh Blackman
However, Section 3(b) riddles this general rule with exceptions, as foreign nationals in the following six categories are not subject to the entry-ban: (i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States; (ii) any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the United States on or after the effective date of this order; (iii) any foreign national who has a document other than a visa, valid on the effective date of this order or issued on any date thereafter,… [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 3:06 pm by PaulKostro
The statutory presumption requires the State to initially “prove by a preponderance of evidence” four essential facts, namely, (a) a transfer; (b) without adequate consideration; (c) of a material portion of the decedent’s estate; and (d) made within three years of the decedent’s death. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 9:04 am
  The final version of the work will appear in Julien Chaisse, Jędrzej Górski and Dini Sejko (eds) The Regulation of State-controlled enterprises: An Interdisciplinary and Comparative Examination’ (Springer forthcoming 2021). [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 10:29 pm by ryanmac1
Here is the statute section for California Health and Safety Code 11379(a)  in its entirety, which are commonly referred to a drug transportation charges; (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) and in Article 7 (commencing with Section 4211) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, every person who transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or offers to transport, import into this state,… [read post]
28 May 2019, 3:45 am by Jessica Kroeze
(b) The sole independent claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request was novel over D1, D9, D10 and D18 and involved an inventive step over D2 as closest prior art.IV. [read post]
31 Oct 2023, 2:18 pm by David Kopel
[Only one federal firearms prohibitor does not require any specfic finding of fact] On November 7, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the only Second Amendment merits case this term, United States v. [read post]