Search for: "Levell v. State"
Results 6041 - 6060
of 29,825
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
County of Butte v. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 6:21 pm
Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s holding that the retroactivity of the Protz decision dates back to the date of the IRE in the context of a worker’s compensation matter.After reviewing the prior Pennsylvania caselaw on the retroactivity of new law under the circumstances presented in this matter, the Court held that, unless the appellate decision rendering the new law specifically states that it is to be applied prospectively, the new rule of… [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 4:42 pm
The court’s decision comes just days before the rule’s June 30 compliance date (XY Planning Network, LLC v. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 4:34 pm
" State v. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 10:13 am
See National Association of Wheat Growers et al. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 9:31 am
(Golden Door Properties, LLC v. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 2:41 am
At supranational level, attention was especially drawn to the topic of the force majeure clause,2)For example, M. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 9:02 pm
They possess a “unique responsibility” to pursue justice, as the Supreme Court stated in the 1987 case of Young v. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 9:01 pm
In its June 10, 2020 decision in Kinnear v. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 2:33 pm
In United States v. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 2:22 pm
Just like any accommodation, it was stated that it was likely to be suitable for a single young man. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 1:01 am
The Supreme Court was also asked to address the provision of the act that provided for expanding Medicaid eligibility to 133% of poverty level and provided federal funding to states for this expansion. [read post]
27 Jun 2020, 9:20 am
Case citation: UMG Recordings v. [read post]
27 Jun 2020, 5:11 am
Petitioner wanted SCOV to follow the lead of the Big Court in Martinez v. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 1:17 pm
The judge in Guilford College v. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 6:19 am
J & J recited without comment or criticism what plaintiffs’ expert witnesses had testified, much of which was quite objectionable.[16] For instance, Moline and Felsher both reprised the scientifically and judicially debunked views that there is “no known safe level of exposure,” from which they inferred the non-sequitur that “any amount above ordinary background levels – could cause ovarian cancer. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 2:53 am
On the ball as always, Joost told me that the appeal in Neurim Pharmaceuticals v. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 2:00 am
Sys. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 2:00 am
Sys. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 2:00 am
Sys. v. [read post]
