Search for: "MATTER OF C A" Results 5901 - 5920 of 36,768
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2018, 11:34 am by Public Employment Law Press
§50.4(c) provided as follows: (c) "who is addicted to the use of narcotics, or who is addicted to the use of intoxicating beverages to excess; or" [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 11:34 am by Public Employment Law Press
§50.4(c) provided as follows: (c) "who is addicted to the use of narcotics, or who is addicted to the use of intoxicating beverages to excess; or" [read post]
Historically, this kind of discretion has led to complications for issue advocacy groups, where communications critical of a sitting public official's position on a matter of public policy have been called "sham" issue ads. [read post]
31 Aug 2019, 1:14 am
Were you sad because you thought that your favorite IP-related saga [I am, of course, referring to the Louboutin Red-sole saga, the C- 163/16 preliminary ruling before the Cour of Justice of the European Union covered by The IPKat here , here and here and the following decision by the referring court, the Court of The Hague, covered by The IPKat here] had come to an end? [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 8:57 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011); e.g., In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 4:25 pm by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
The addition is not needed in the case of an applicant who becomes a personal representative as a result of his application, for the implied consent provided in Section 3-602 would cover the matter. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 6:13 am by Sean Hanover
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Time Period to Respond     FRCP 6 ( c ) -motion and notice served 14 days prior to the hearing   supporting affidavit served 7 days     FRCP 12 answer due 21 days answer to counterclaim/crossclaim 21 days reply to answer ( if ordered)   if court denies a Rule 12 motion, answer 14 days after notice due   if court grants more definite statement motion within 14 days answer to more definite statement… [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 4:16 pm
So I agree with Justice Moor that, as a policy matter, it's kinda silly (and I don't think the Legislature's intent) were the statute to allow any nonprofit -- however abusive or whathaveyou -- a right to divert stray dogs, or to have the IRS be the only determinant of which nonprofit shelters could legitimately divert. [read post]
27 Sep 2018, 1:44 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Understating the matter, “the Court notes that this claim is strange when viewed in conjunction with PC Drivers’ other claims. [read post]