Search for: "State v. P. B."
Results 5861 - 5880
of 6,786
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jun 2009, 2:31 am
With respect to consumer credit, it should be reflected whether it might be appropriate to align the wording of Articles 15(1)(a) and (b) of the Regulation to the definition of consumer credit of Directive 2008/48/EC . [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 9:32 am
Neither [United States v.] [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 7:40 am
P. 2002(b), as Espinosa did here. [read post]
16 Jun 2009, 7:02 pm
But then along comes V-P Joe Biden on Meet the Press last Sunday:MR. [read post]
16 Jun 2009, 9:25 am
Ancon Ltd. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2009, 9:41 pm
According to Matthews v. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 4:50 pm
Justices Corrigan and Young also noted that Caperton v. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 3:17 pm
For example, on p. 10 of the Disposition, in a footnote, the court states: The petitioners also argue that the fuel burn analysis failed to show the redesign will reduce emissions in all relevant nonattainment and maintenance areas, see 40 C.F.R. 93.153(b), but that argument is not properly before us because the petitioners failed to raise it until their reply brief, Sitka Sound Seafoods, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 1:23 pm
Finally, and consistently with the decision in Case C-269/95, Benincasa v. [read post]
9 Jun 2009, 6:06 am
The Justice noted that the State failed to comply with the spirit and the letter of W.R.E.404(b) jurisprudence. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 8:16 pm
(b) The admitting nurse shall formulate a plan of care (POC) stating the risk of falling and if the patient is at risk, then nurse shall implement reasonable specific reasonable nursing actions to prevent falling including but not limited to the following: … [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 6:08 pm
State v. [read post]
7 Jun 2009, 11:08 am
B. [read post]
6 Jun 2009, 2:21 pm
D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL CENTER v. [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 2:17 pm
" Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 8:12 am
Jones, 725 P.2d 1115, 1118-19 (Ariz. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 9:55 am
Collins & Aikman Corp. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 7:12 am
Issue: Whether the antifraud provisions of the United States securities laws extend to transnational frauds where: (a) the foreign-based parent company conducted substantial business in the United States and (b)the claims arose from an accounting fraud perpetrated by American citizens at the parent company's Florida based subsidiary, and whether subject matter jurisdiction extends to transnational fraud-on-the-market claims. [read post]
28 May 2009, 11:26 am
The other day we - allegedly belatedly - posted about the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. [read post]
28 May 2009, 11:17 am
” Lindy Pen at p. 1407. [read post]
