Search for: "MATTER OF B B J B" Results 5161 - 5180 of 5,815
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jul 2009, 8:36 pm
And either way Dukes may be headed eventually to the Supreme Court.Anyway, we're back on this schtick because earlier this week an anonymous commentator (too bad, s/he'd have gotten a shout out) to our "taking stock" post mentioned a new law review article, J. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 8:21 pm
It really doesn't matter how they seized it. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 3:39 pm by Steven Hansen
On review, however, it turns out that, yes, it really is that easy. 1And not only that, there is nothing this court, as a matter of California common law, can do about it. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 8:58 am
  If there is no negative repercussion for a late follow-up verification request, doesn't the exception of 65-3.8(j) swallow up the rule of 65-3.6(b)? [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 11:19 pm
 I reproduce this summary below: (b) Solicitor-client privilege [26] Solicitor-client privilege, or "legal advice privilege", is conceptually different from litigation privilege. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 4:10 am
Courts have viewed employees who lack licenses as being "unqualified," in contrast to being "incompetent," to perform the duties of the position.In contrast, see Matter of Martin ex rel Lekkas, 86 AD2d 712. [read post]