Search for: "Matter of S. G. v B. G."
Results 41 - 60
of 2,545
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Feb 2023, 9:00 am
Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477, and Matter of Edwards v New York State Police, 44 AD3d 1216. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 3:26 am
Parker, 41 AD3d 852; Matter of Cassieri v. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 9:15 am
In United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2008, 2:35 pm
§ § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) under Begay v. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 2:14 pm
The claim was then given directions to trial of claim and counterclaim, on Mr B’s proposed directions, as the ‘advocate’ for Mr G had not prepared any directions. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 9:20 am
VAN HORN V. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 8:58 am
Donnell, Judge.Representing Opportunity: Alan G. [read post]
26 May 2022, 4:00 am
AUSTIN ANGELA G. [read post]
26 May 2022, 4:00 am
AUSTIN ANGELA G. [read post]
26 May 2022, 4:00 am
AUSTIN ANGELA G. [read post]
26 May 2022, 4:00 am
AUSTIN ANGELA G. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 11:46 am
The rule says this: “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense[.] [read post]
25 Sep 2023, 6:05 am
From Khan v. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 12:29 am
This, in the Board's view, constitutes a sufficient reason to admit D18 into the proceedings.1.3 Contrary to the respondent's argument, it could not be expected that the appellant would immediately react to this new and brief submission by requesting anew, during the oral proceedings, to admit D18 into the proceedings. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 5:36 am
(quoting Heard v. [read post]
11 Apr 2015, 11:14 am
2011 NY Slip Op 52244 Leslie G., Petitioner, v. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 11:01 am
electrons, which ligand(s) is (are) chosen from CO and NO2+; the total electron charge q of the complex to which L1, L2 and L3 contribute and the ionic charge of the metal M being positive and equal to 1 or 2; the anionic borate entity of which has the formula in which: a and b are integers ranging, for a, from 0 to 3 and, for b, from 1 to 4 with a + b = 4, the symbols X… [read post]
7 Apr 2009, 12:32 pm
The case of Commonwealth v. [read post]
7 Jun 2017, 8:54 am
Joa objected to these amendments again claiming that they lacked novelty and inventive step, that they resulted in the specification disclosing additional matter contrary to s 76(3)(a) Patents Act 1977 (the 1977 Act), and that they lacked clarity contrary to s 14(5)(b) 1977 Act. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 6:08 pm
Why does it matter? [read post]