Search for: "State v. Husband"
Results 5201 - 5220
of 7,276
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Sep 2011, 9:46 am
In L.M.F v. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 8:26 am
” Plessy v. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 2:38 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 2:54 pm
Strickland v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 2:54 pm
Strickland v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 8:18 am
The 911 dispatcher asked Julian if she had she was able to get away from her husband. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 4:07 am
After considering evidence about a conversation that husband purportedly had with one of its employees, the Office of Personnel Management affirmed, stating that husband could have elected to receive a reduced lifetime annuity with survivor benefits for a new wife only by notifying OPM of his intentions in a signed writing within two years of his marriage, 5 U.S.C. 8339(k)(2)(A). [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 9:53 am
In Daly v. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 6:38 am
In the 2009 case of APS v. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 1:12 pm
State of Kerala & Anr. 2000(6) SCC 359 and State of Bombay Vs. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 10:21 am
Johnson’s lawsuit against the City of Houston’s illegal sanctuary policy will now continue (Johnson v. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 3:58 am
State v. [read post]
12 Sep 2011, 6:06 am
’ That ‘violence’ goes beyond phsyical harm or threats of physical harm was confirmed by the the Supreme Court in Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow [2011] UKSC 3 where in the context of section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996, a husband shouting at his wife would be sufficient conduct to fall within that Act’s definition of ‘violence. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 1:30 pm
Indeed, at the very minimum, he would be required, under the rule in Wilson v. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 8:49 am
In Ingraham v. [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 11:19 am
In US v. [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 11:19 am
In US v. [read blog]
9 Sep 2011, 5:30 am
However, because of the now fifty year old legal principle established in Feres v. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 4:31 pm
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 5:59 am
In a decision widely considered the high-water mark of state-action doctrine, Shelley v. [read post]
