Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 6001 - 6020
of 15,316
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Mar 2017, 8:34 am
” Since the High Court’s 1975 decision in Cort v. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 6:53 pm
Nothing in this Ordinance shall prohibit an entity authorized by state law to dispense Medical Marijuana from making deliveries of Medical Marijuana to the residence or business of an authorized individual or health care facility as permitted by relevant state law, subject to the applicable requirements of this Ordinance. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 6:53 pm
Nothing in this Ordinance shall prohibit an entity authorized by state law to dispense Medical Marijuana from making deliveries of Medical Marijuana to the residence or business of an authorized individual or health care facility as permitted by relevant state law, subject to the applicable requirements of this Ordinance. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 9:23 am
Ever since the SJC issuedFabre v. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 9:23 am
Ever since the SJC issued Fabre v. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 9:23 am
Ever since the SJC issued Fabre v. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 8:15 am
B. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 9:00 pm
Peck ordered the defendants “to revise their Responses to comply with the Rules”, specifically Rule 34(b)(2)(B) and Rule 34(b)(2)(C), amended in December 2015 requiring objections to be stated with specificity and directing that an objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 9:00 pm
Peck ordered the defendants “to revise their Responses to comply with the Rules”, specifically Rule 34(b)(2)(B) and Rule 34(b)(2)(C), amended in December 2015 requiring objections to be stated with specificity and directing that an objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 4:26 pm
In U.S. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 11:28 am
On October 20, 2016, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided Motorola Inc. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 11:28 am
On October 20, 2016, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided Motorola Inc. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 9:46 am
In today’s Leonard v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 8:46 am
(c) The implementation of Executive Order 13769 has been delayed by litigation. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 6:49 am
Its interpretation of C-215/14 is clearly different from that of Arnold J (see T-112/13, paras. 97-101). [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 1:00 am
R (A) (a Child) (by her litigation friend B) v Secretary of State for Health, heard 2 November 2016. [read post]
5 Mar 2017, 8:34 am
SCOV, like the Jackson 5, said this is as easy as A, B, C. [read post]
4 Mar 2017, 7:11 am
Introduction B. [read post]
3 Mar 2017, 5:14 pm
H.S.P. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2017, 11:38 am
Fischer v. [read post]
