Search for: "Cost v. State"
Results 501 - 520
of 31,583
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Oct 2023, 1:29 pm
United States, 381 F.3d 444, 450 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Crawford Fitting Co. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2018, 5:25 pm
United States: Whether the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act covers costs for reimbursement that were “neither required nor requested” by the government, including costs incurred for the victim’s own... [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 1:34 pm
Berry, 2 Ohio St.2d 169, 207 N.E.2d 545; Snyder v. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 5:59 pm
A costs endorsement in the case of Persampieri v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 8:11 am
Tweet Tags: First Amendment, labor unions, Supreme CourtGuest post, “Harris v. [read post]
17 May 2013, 1:31 pm
The policy states that ILU 'agrees to pay . . . [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 7:20 am
The following contribution to our Shelby County v. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 7:47 am
Here: Complaint An excerpt: This is a suit against the United States for breach of contract and statute by the Indian Health Service (“IHS”), an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 8:53 am
ShareIn Torres v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 4:34 pm
United States, 519U.S. 172, 183 n.7 (1997); United States v. [read post]
31 Aug 2021, 8:21 am
But several days ago, in Black Voters Matter Fun v. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 12:04 pm
Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University, 2012. [read post]
20 Jan 2010, 3:22 am
On December 30, 2009, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in MBIA, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 12:39 pm
June 21, 2012), the United States District Court for the District of Oregon had occasion to consider whether an insurer’s duty to defend includes an obligation to pay for appellate costs involving non-covered claims. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 7:05 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 7:08 am
--Court: United States District Court for the District of ConnecticutOpinion Date: 6/1/10Cite: Genworth Financial Wealth Mgmt., Inc. v. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 9:11 am
"[Plaintiff] argues it should not have to pay any costs because it was acting in the public interest by bringing the lawsuit as a qui tam relator to help the United States enforce the false marking statute; and if anything, it should only be required to pay half of any allowable costs. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 1:00 am
In Swofford v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 8:53 pm
However, the court referenced a 2016 decision (David v. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 9:01 pm
In Edwards v. [read post]
