Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 4781 - 4800
of 15,316
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 May 2010, 1:28 pm
Partners, LLC v. [read post]
10 Feb 2020, 2:05 pm
(Domen v. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 2:04 am
Ellie Wilson brings you the story.CJEU: "Flat-rate" reimbursement for legal fees must cover a significant part of the costs incurred by the successful party In Case C-57/15 United Video Properties, the CJEU held that while Article 14 Enforcement Directive does not prohibit flat-rate reimbursement of legal costs per se, it sets limits on how Member States can set the flat-rate. [read post]
21 Jul 2022, 8:20 am
C. [read post]
19 Jul 2015, 6:52 pm
B. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 11:29 pm
Bhd. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 5:28 am
At 11:21 a.m., C.'s friend, B., received a text message from C.'s cell phone. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 7:48 am
State v. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 2:13 pm
In a recent decision issued by the United States Court of Federal Claims, Anthem Builders, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 5:15 am
” Vasilas v. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 12:44 pm
C-13-3826 EMC (September 1, 2015). [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 6:17 pm
(WFXG) Amid a recent surge in gun violence, including several apartment complex shootings, the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office has launched the “G.I.V.I.N.G. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 6:17 pm
(WFXG) Amid a recent surge in gun violence, including several apartment complex shootings, the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office has launched the “G.I.V.I.N.G. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 7:12 am
It is well settled that a defendant's statutory right to testify before the grand jury " must be scrupulously protected' " (People v Smith, 87 NY2d 715, 721, quoting People v Corrigan, 80 NY2d 326, 332). [read post]
17 May 2011, 10:07 am
., SR. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 5:51 am
Guest Post by Benjamin C. [read post]
8 Oct 2024, 6:34 am
SEMINAL C ASE LAW ON EMPLOYMENT: BORELLO, MARTINEZ, DYNAMEX § 30 Overview § 31 Borello Case § 32 Martinez Case § 33 Dynamex Case §§ 34-39 Reserved PART V. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 11:23 am
In Lorenzo v. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 2:10 pm
The Court of Appeal was asked to consider the case on the basis that: a) SO was an asylum seeker, rather than a failed asylum seeker b) SO was now 20, rather than 23 as thr AIT had found - the AIT's decision not being conclusive (R(A) v Croydon LBC: R(M) v Lambeth LBC [2009] 1 WLR 2557 ) c) The Court was to ignore the fact that SO was receiving education and training as set out in his pathway plan. [read post]
