Search for: "STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY" Results 6161 - 6180 of 9,044
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Mar 2007, 6:33 am
Rather, the Defendant will have to present a defense to the New Jersey state court.Id. at *9-10 (emphasis added). [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 9:54 am
It is estimated that capital punishment cost New Jersey $250 million since executions resumed in 1976. [read post]
29 May 2007, 8:03 am
New Jersey in 2000 limiting judges' power to impose enhanced sentences. [read post]
30 Jan 2021, 9:50 am by Eric Goldman
FTC * New Jersey Attorney Ethics Opinion Blesses Competitive Keyword Advertising (…or Does It?) [read post]
30 Apr 2017, 8:10 am by James S. Friedman, LLC
Friedman represents individuals with criminal charges in the Superior Court throughout New Jersey, the United States District Courts located in New Jersey and New York City, and the New York State criminal courts in Manhattan and Brooklyn. [read post]
1 Sep 2016, 7:30 am by Andrew Hamm
For her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse looks at the 1988 case Morrison v. [read post]
26 Feb 2009, 10:26 am
Based on New Jersey public policy, the court refuses to apply the law of Utah, under which the class action would be have been barred. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 5:40 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Better Business Bureau of New Jersey, Inc., 2012 WL 426292 (D.N.J.) [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 8:55 pm
("Novel") appeals the grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that U.S. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 7:15 am by Maureen Johnston
New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 1:11 am
Supreme Court for Gay Marriage Fiat New Jersey Law Journal Citing the New Jersey Legislature's failure in the last session to enact a same-sex marriage law, a coalition of gay rights groups is asking the state Supreme Court to issue its own mandate. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 3:01 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  After respondent repeatedly failed to make payments required under the agreement, the federal court modified its order and imposed various restrictions on respondent, inter alia, limiting his business and personal expenditures and generally confining his personal travel to the City of New York and his business travel to New York State and New Jersey (Baker v Dorfman, 2006 WL 988756)[SD NY 2006]. [read post]