Search for: "Jones v State" Results 4921 - 4940 of 6,149
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Nov 2018, 9:56 am by John Elwood
State Bar of California and Lathrop v. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 2:48 pm by John Elwood
United States, 17-778, United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 10:16 am
  Id.at *21, *24-25.No Causation; No Plaintiff-Created FDCA Requirements            In Jones v. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 4:52 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
The prevailing state of the law remains unsettled, with no explicit appeals court guidance to be found. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 9:09 am by Eugene Volokh
Hadley, 431 F.3d 484, 507 (6th Cir. 2005), and United States v. [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 5:47 am
The 20 December 2005 judgment of Judge John Jones in Kitzmiller v. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 2:31 am
That was followed by the Department for Work and Pensions' Green Paper Strengthening families, promoting parental responsibility: the future of child maintenance, which set out the Government's controversial proposals for a new child maintenance system.The month concluded with the entertaining Court of Appeal decision in Jones v Jones, which included this quote from barrister Ashley Murray:"There are certain challenges each of us should attempt in our… [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 8:48 am
Post by Sherry Colb In my column for this week, I write about the Supreme Court's upcoming case, United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 12:32 pm by John Elwood
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reversed, stating that the U.S. [read post]
30 Sep 2024, 9:55 am by Joel R. Brandes
Where the court made no such finding here, and instead, improperly delegated the parenting time determination to the father, the error required reversalIn Matter of C.M. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 3:25 pm by Christa Culver
HarrisDocket: 10-224Issue(s): (1) Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a “presumption against preemption” requires a “narrow interpretation” of the Federal Meat Inspection Act's express preemption provision, in conflict with this Court's decision in Jones v. [read post]