Search for: "In re the Interest of: S. W." Results 41 - 60 of 4,766
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Oct 2008, 5:59 pm
This is in keeping with the intent of the No-Fault Law as a whole because it seeks to encourage the parties moving forward toward a quick resolution, while not economically favoring one side or the other.* * * * *The agency's interpretation of one of its promulgated regulations "is entitled to deference" (Matter of 427 W. 51st St. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 1:19 pm by Kelly Phillips Erb
Your lender will also report any refund or credit for a prior year’s overpayment of interest. [read post]
7 May 2012, 6:37 am by Kate Fort
In addition, the case, which has a complicated procedural history given the actions of the private adoption agency, provides an interesting analysis of what is a “final order” in an ICWA case and a discussion of the collateral order doctrine: Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude the district court’s order permitting a deviation from ICWA’s placement preferences did not dispose of the entire merits of the case and left open the… [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 5:00 am
"... which they’re claiming to save from 'The New Intolerance of Campus Activism,' as Friedersdorf’s headline writer put it sloppily. [read post]
20 May 2014, 7:34 pm by Bryant Walker Smith
Accompanying this rule is a Final Statement of Reasons that, on page 9, contains a striking exchange: In response to Robert W. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 4:15 pm
” If you’re not happy to name the members of your team, doesn’t that suggest there’s something sordid about the game you’re playing? [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 6:00 pm by Kelly Phillips Erb
If that’s too much effort, and you also have a W-2 job, you can make adjustments on your form W-4. [read post]
7 Nov 2018, 7:35 am by Mike McBride
I’m not exactly sure how they thought this would work, “For example, Email 3 – an email purportedly from Plaintiff to Defendant — stated, “[w]e are interested in cutting off training. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 6:00 am by LTA-Editor
On Monday, Nov. 18, 2013, The Supreme Court denied cert in In re Electronic Privacy Information Center, a direct challenge to the National Security Agency’s (NSA) broad domestic-surveillance programs. [read post]