Search for: "State v. D. M. B." Results 461 - 480 of 3,597
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jan 2012, 3:39 am by Russ Bensing
Bolton (which we’ll talk about on Thursday), and the other in State v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 1:00 pm by McNabb Associates, P.C.
WILSON, Minister plenipotentiary and Envoy extraordinary of the United States of America in Switzerland, His Serene Highness the Ruling Prince of Liechtenstein: M. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 9:55 am by Geoffrey Rapp
Recently published scholarship includes:Craig D. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 10:34 am by Dwight Sullivan
The certified issue is: WHETHER THE RESTRICTIONS UNDER R.C.M. 1001(B)(5)APPLY TO REBUTTAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED UNDER R.C.M. 1001(D) AND WHETHER THE U.S. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 3:32 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
If she were unable to author works during incapacity, perhaps there’d be more incentives to work to restore her capacity. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 3:17 am
Another factor in the litigation: The State Comptroller had issued an opinion indicating that Section 384-d(m) requires any Town police officer who ever enrolled in the 20-year plan to separate from service at age 55, regardless of whether the officer has subsequently withdrawn from the plan. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 2:27 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
As usedin Rule 60(b)(3), “‘[m]isconduct’ does not demand proof ofnefarious intent or purpose as a prerequisite to redress.. . . [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 12:40 pm
In her practice she had been called upon to: “[c]ounsel employers regarding all aspects of labor and employment law”; “[m]anage all phases of labor and employment/commercial litigation in state and federal courts”; “[r]epresent employers before state and federal administrative agencies”; “[r]epresent management in labor grievance and arbitration proceedings”; and “[d]evelop and conduct labor and employment law… [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 11:16 pm
Blog post-US Supreme Court Bankruptcy Watch: Readying for Stern v. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 3:45 am by Russ Bensing
  I acquiesce in the latter three continuances because :  (A) I’m a nice guy and want to accomodate opposing counsel (B) The judge is going to grant the continuances anyway, so I might as well earn brownie points by pretending to be a nice guy. [read post]