Search for: "Reiter v. Reiter" Results 4841 - 4860 of 6,283
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jun 2011, 5:10 am
We previously answered this question in the affirmative in People v Stith (69 NY2d 313, 506 N.E.2d 911, 514 N.Y.S.2d 201 [1987]), and reiterate that holding today. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 12:48 pm by Michael M. O'Hear
I opposed retroactivity for the new SOCs in my written testimony and reiterated the main points in my oral testimony today. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 12:38 pm by Michael O'Hear
I opposed retroactivity for the new SOCs in my written testimony and reiterated the main points in my oral testimony today. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 5:48 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
Comparing WTO Panelists and ICSID Arbitrators: The Creation of International Legal Fields Jose Augusto Fontoura Costa Abstract:      Who are people who make the decisions in trade and investment dispute settlement systems? [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 5:48 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
Comparing WTO Panelists and ICSID Arbitrators: The Creation of International Legal Fields Jose Augusto Fontoura Costa Abstract:      Who are people who make the decisions in trade and investment dispute settlement systems? [read post]
30 May 2011, 11:37 pm by Aileen McColgan, Matrix.
Lord Phillips reiterated, as [58], that “the HRA does not have retroactive effect”, also that its interpretation ought to mirror that of the Convention. [read post]
30 May 2011, 10:22 am
Saretsky v. 85 Kenmare Realty Corp., 2011 WL 1796367 (May 12, 2011). [read post]
30 May 2011, 10:22 am by nyinjuries
” Saretsky v. 85 Kenmare Realty Corp., 2011 WL 1796367 (May 12, 2011). [read post]
28 May 2011, 5:06 pm by Lyle Denniston
  They did so in the case of U.S. v. [read post]
27 May 2011, 3:00 am by John Day
“Applying our conclusions to the present case, we first reiterate that Ms. [read post]
26 May 2011, 10:48 am by Record on Appeal
On Tuesday, May 24, 2011, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued an opinion authored by Judge Foley in Alakai Na Keiki, Inc. v. [read post]