Search for: "State v. C. R."
Results 6141 - 6160
of 13,583
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Sep 2014, 9:01 pm
Snapping a remarkable winning streak for plaintiffs challenging state bans, Feldman’s ruling was the first decision by a federal court upholding a state SSM ban since the Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 10:53 am
The Board’s decision in Matter of A-R-C-G, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014) held that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship,” constitute a legally cognizable “particular social group,” (PGS.) and under the right circumstances, could be considered refugees and granted asylum in the United States. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 9:34 am
C. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 5:00 am
§ 42.53(c). [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 8:43 pm
On August 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed itself and ruled in the case of Boley v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 7:43 pm
On August 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed itself and ruled in the case of Boley v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 12:35 pm
Sunstein, R. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 12:30 pm
In the case, Loving v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 6:08 am
In a recent case, Smith v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 5:57 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 3:30 am
DeStefano in Radburn v Singh, Index No. 601902/14 [Sup Ct, Nassau County Aug. 18, 2014], in which the court held that the claims and relief sought in the two lawsuits were not the same, and that notwithstanding the election to purchase in the dissolution case, the plaintiff minority shareholder remained a shareholder with the right to seek enforcement of the shareholders’ agreement and other, common-law and statutory shareholder rights. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 9:01 pm
C. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 3:19 am
[v] The SEC Certainly the majority of the federal activity on cyber security issues has come from the SEC. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 10:43 pm
” Prosecutor v. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 10:42 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
2 Sep 2014, 10:45 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 10:52 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 10:46 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 12:49 pm
In dissent in Petrella v. [read post]
30 Aug 2014, 10:42 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
