Search for: "STATE IN THE INTEREST OF Vs."
Results 541 - 560
of 5,134
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Apr 2022, 4:49 am
” 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5) “An order for child support may be modified as follows… upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstance” 750 ILCS 5/510(a) “Parenting time may be modified at any time, without a showing of serious endangerment, upon a showing of changed circumstances that necessitates modification to serve the best interests of the child” 750 ILCS 5/610.5(a) “[T]he court shall modify a parenting plan or allocation… [read post]
1 May 2013, 2:14 pm
United States. [read post]
23 Oct 2021, 10:27 am
We are now facing a similar outbreak – smaller at this point (over 650 vs over 1,600 sickened) – but it will be interesting to see if the root cause of the outbreak tracks as the below 2020 cause. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 10:50 am
ROUBA VS. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 11:14 am
What makes KOB-TV's story so interesting is how the facts can be presented as an illegal strip search. [read post]
17 Mar 2024, 9:05 pm
Benefits vs. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 1:31 pm
It will be interesting to see what the Court ultimately does with Schultz; on the one hand, the Kilbride Court has shown a pragmatic streak in a number of cases, finding for substance over form, but on the other hand, in their most recent strict-vs. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 11:19 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2010, 5:10 am
Over the past two months, I published a two-part article on the consolidation vs. severance issue in Post-Koken cases in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, a statewide legal publication. [read post]
16 May 2019, 3:58 am
The below is that post: David Dayton over at the consistently enlightening Silk Road International Blog did an interesting post comparing China to Thailand for manufacturing, entitled, Thailand vs. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 1:59 pm
., vs. [read post]
29 Dec 2015, 10:13 am
These personal interests may not be identical to the public interest--the interest of all of the people. [read post]
6 May 2018, 7:45 pm
On May 3, 2018 the New Jersey Appellate Division published the case of DCPP VS. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 11:36 am
From the latest research on the Tea Party we learn that “Tea Partiers judge entitlement programs not in terms of abstract free-market orthodoxy, but according to the perceived deservingness of recipients…The fundamental distinction for them is not state vs. individual, it is the division of the United States into ‘workers’ vs. [read post]
9 Jun 2019, 2:59 pm
” Furthermore, federal law gives great deference to state courts in family law proceedings, and the Supreme Court has explained that “[s]tate family and family-property law must do ‘major damage’ to ‘clear and substantial’ federal interests before the Supremacy Clause will demand that state law be overridden. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 6:29 am
Then its on the the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco for appellate resolution; if the case is fast-tracked, an opinion could be issued by the intermediate appellate court by April or May.Depending on the rulings and given that the legal positions taken by the parties seem entrenched, the case could potentially be briefed and argued at the SCOTUS during its next term.Meanwhile, the investigation remains stalled for months and any useful data stored in the… [read post]
29 Aug 2019, 1:33 am
In such cases, authorisation can be granted by the State Administration for Market Regulation (known, prior to the 2018 government administration overhaul, as the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, i.e. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 6:43 pm
It'll be interesting. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 11:19 am
No reason for states to require consistency, apart from their own (internalized) interest in being able to free-ride on federal enforcement for itemized deductions claimed federally.Joint versus separate marital filing: If state wants a different policy, this is salient to voters. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 8:26 am
"It is in the best interest of the State to have the Supreme Court issue a decision on whether or not SB 10 violates free speech rights of citizens. [read post]
