Search for: "In the Interest of: E.G. v. Juvenile Officer"
Results 41 - 60
of 65
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Apr 2015, 11:55 am
Smith v. [read post]
26 Oct 2014, 8:23 pm
Consideration of Hamdi v. [read post]
11 Aug 2014, 8:09 am
(See, e.g., In re P.T.; New York v. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 9:54 am
Moller Police Officers Aren’t Liable For Investigating Cyberstalking and Revenge Porn–Keaton v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am
In terms of other interesting developments during the second quarter, two courts of appeal ground through three of highly detailed cases: California Clean Energy Committee v. [read post]
29 Jun 2014, 10:09 am
See, e.g., Garrison v. [read post]
6 Jun 2014, 9:21 am
June 4, 2014) Related posts: Police Officers Aren’t Liable For Investigating Cyberstalking and Revenge Porn–Keaton v. [read post]
23 May 2014, 4:54 am
Skip relinquished his ownership interest in the agency around 1997. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 11:56 am
To me, the more interesting development on Tuesday concerned the committee's squelching of yet another rural county's ploy to use incarceration - in this case, of juveniles - as an economic development gambit. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 4:30 am
(See, e.g. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 3:48 am
See, e.g., In Re: TT, 779 NW 2d 602, 614–621 (Neb. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm
Six other juveniles witnessed what happened. [read post]
24 May 2011, 10:58 am
But that, of course, is not the question of immediate interest. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 3:17 am
(See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 1:08 pm
Nelson, 163 N.J. 235, 244 (2000); See e.g., S.M. v. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 2:34 pm
Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention, U.S. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 5:30 am
Texas (availability of damages for state violation of RLUIPA, which protects the exercise of religion by institutionalized persons, e.g., prison inmates) Arizona Christian School Tuition Organizations v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 1:07 pm
Attorney’s Office described their alleged criminal acts as follows: Taking action to remove funding for the Luzerne County juvenile detention facility, effectively closing that facility; Ordering juveniles to be sent to the facilities in which they had a financial interest even when juvenile probation officers did not recommend detention; Entering a “Placement Guarantee Agreement” to house children in a facility in which the… [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 10:11 am
[State v. [read post]
