Search for: "State v. State" Results 561 - 580 of 257,366
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jun 2024, 5:00 am
# # #DECISIONB. v County of Nassau# # #New York State Insurance Law, Section 5102(d), defines a "serious injury" to include:DeathDismembermentA severe disfigurementFractured bonesLoss of fetusPermanent loss of use of body organ, member, function or systemPermanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or memberA significant limitation of use of a body function or systemMedically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured… [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 3:48 am by Peter A. Mahler
Some nine years ago I wrote about an LLC dissolution case titled Goldstein v Pikus decided by former Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Charles Ramos which also involved a bitter dispute between two estranged co-managing members of a realty-holding LLC. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 3:45 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action was correct. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 1:55 am by Frank Cranmer
Background In A Health and Social Care Trust v A Mother Re (A Child) [2024] NIFam 4, SE, the child of a single mother, was placed in foster care by the Trust as a result of her mother’s mental state and drug misuse. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 12:55 am by INFORRM
Data Privacy and Data Protection DLA Piper has an article on the state of play of the data-sharing frameworks in the EU and UK. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 12:43 am by Rose Hughes
Notably, § 112, r 6 does not state that the Specification must also describe equivalents of that structure. [read post]
9 Jun 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
On February 23, 2024, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its decision in West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. [read post]
9 Jun 2024, 5:17 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
Rahimi’s lawyers say a Supreme Court decision two years ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
9 Jun 2024, 9:40 am by Giles Peaker
The review decision in part stated I refer to R v Oxford CC ex p Doyle (1997) concluding that a Child Arrangement Order does not mean the Children are reasonably expected to live with both parents. [read post]