Search for: "Deas v. Deas"
Results 501 - 520
of 794
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jan 2007, 9:32 am
Mendoza v. [read post]
22 Feb 2006, 12:49 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2009, 1:27 pm
Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2007, 1:18 pm
US v. [read post]
13 Dec 2018, 2:42 pm
Properties, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 8:39 am
United States v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:52 am
However, this principle is not unlimited (see Cullen v Stanley [1926] IR 73 (SC); though quaere whether the case would be decided on its facts in the same way in the light of Quinlavan v O’Dea and Allister v Paisley above). [read post]
4 Aug 2022, 5:00 am
In FDA v. [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 1:51 am
U.S. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2007, 9:59 am
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court insofar as it upheld the hearing officer's determination regarding the extent of the School District's violation of the DEA, but REVERSE the court's affirmation of the compensatory-education award and REMAND the case with instructions to have the appropriate administrative body craft a remedy that complies with the IDEA. 07a0088p.06 2007/03/02 USA v. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 12:54 pm
Supreme Court ruling Hurst v. [read post]
17 Sep 2021, 12:00 pm
While the PHE continues, the exception will apply and provides as follows: “DEA-registered practitioners in all areas of the United States may issue prescriptions for all schedule II-V controlled substances to patients for whom they have not conducted an in-person medical evaluation, provided all of the following conditions are met: The prescription is issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of his/her professional… [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 2:33 pm
See DEA Diversion Program FAQ. [read post]
17 Sep 2021, 12:00 pm
While the PHE continues, the exception will apply and provides as follows: “DEA-registered practitioners in all areas of the United States may issue prescriptions for all schedule II-V controlled substances to patients for whom they have not conducted an in-person medical evaluation, provided all of the following conditions are met: The prescription is issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of his/her professional… [read post]
16 Jan 2010, 12:26 pm
United States v. [read post]
17 Jun 2007, 10:03 am
United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 2:15 pm
Hemp Industries Ass’in v. [read post]
8 Jun 2008, 9:19 am
Wiretap guru Judge Betty Fletcher (left) brings us a disappointing Title III decision this week in United States v. [read post]
7 Oct 2007, 6:40 am
See United States v. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 10:26 am
Arizona V. [read post]
