Search for: "House v. Close" Results 6021 - 6040 of 7,520
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Feb 2011, 8:59 am by Bruce Boyden
This is just close enough to the rules of liability for contributory tortfeasors to be confusing. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
The Ministry of Justice Consultation on Civil Litigation Funding closed yesterday, 14 February 2011. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 7:51 am by Peter Rost
Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who has been involved in many investigations of the FDA. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 5:22 am by Gritsforbreakfast
On top of that, in the next biennium, the House budget would cut General Revenue fund moneys to TDCJ by a jaw-dropping $643.8 million, and the Senate by a still-enormous $440.9 million. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 12:00 am
Austin v- Metropolitan Police Commissioner was brought by a demonstrator who attended anti-capitalist protests in London in 2001. [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 4:59 pm
Last week I wrote here about the evidentiary issues in Modonese v. [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 2:53 pm by David Doniger
”  Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, scheduled a hearing on the bill Wednesday, February 9th, as the first step towards ramming it through the House. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 7:16 am by INFORRM
Our right to free expression has a natural tension with our right to privacy – see Von Hannover, Campbell v MGN or Mosley v News Group Newspapers. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 4:00 am by Jim Dedman
"You may recall that here and here we mentioned the case of Barbour v. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 9:26 am by PJ Blount
Not later than 30 days after the close of each quarter, the Comptroller shall transfer to the Virginia Commercial Spaceflight Authority an amount from the general fund that is equal to the estimate provided by the Tax Commissioner. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 10:59 pm by Adam Wagner
In Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] 1 FLR 224, HL the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) held that a girl under 16 could validly consent to contraception “provided that she has sufficient understanding and intelligence to know what they involve“. [read post]