Search for: "STATE IN THE INTEREST OF D B"
Results 601 - 620
of 10,342
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2011, 10:57 am
Angiolillo had an interesting comment on what may be interfering with case settlement. [read post]
26 Aug 2013, 12:31 am
Since 2011 the Tilt-a-Whirl brand and trademark has been owned by J&S Rides, d/b/a Larson International out of Plainview, Texas. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 3:58 am
New York State Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(1)(d)(1) provides a list of specific types of property that may not be considered marital property and must be considered the separate property of the title-holding spouse. [read post]
12 Nov 2024, 12:15 am
Code § 25103(b). [read post]
28 Apr 2019, 5:38 am
Carl D. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 4:00 am
” Further, explained the D’Agostino court, “[t]here is no constitutional violation unless the contractual benefits are unilaterally diminished,” presumably as a result of an action by the State Legislature, the State or a political subdivision of the State to truncate a retirement allowance otherwise payable, citing Rosen v New York City Teachers' Retirement Bd., 282 App Div 216, affd 306 NY 625, and Delaney v Regan, 183 AD2d… [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 5:30 pm
By Kelly McClure In re Interest of MAS concerned the troubling issue of a father who’d been convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 5:22 pm
Code: "The term "contractor" or "consultant" does not include a common interest development manager, as defined in Section 11501, and a common interest development manager is not required to have a contractor's license when performing management services, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 11500." [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 5:15 am
Further, Canoro stated that MASS did not control Canoro. [read post]
10 Oct 2024, 8:46 am
However, there are exceptions for two groups of people: Group A and Group B. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 5:07 am
State of California (5th—F084367) Residential Employees Performing In-Home Supportive Services—Employment Relationship with State of California—Vicarious Liability—Court of Appeal, affirming trial court’s dismissal order, held that State of California (State) had no employment relationship (either as joint or special employer) with In-Home Supportive… Digests of WCAB Decisions Denied Judicial Review Innovative Work Comp… [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
Since the laws in the contracting states vary to quite an extent from one to another, this requirement needs to be applied in a harmonized manner for all contracting states. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 1:40 pm
You will want to consider all of the topics in A and B below, and you may need to consider the topics in C, D and E as well. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 1:40 pm
You will want to consider all of the topics in A and B below, and you may need to consider the topics in C, D and E as well. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 4:56 am
Under the MSPA, only the Unites States government is authorized to pursue its own right to reimbursement. 42 U.S.C.A § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(iii). [read post]
13 Jun 2009, 6:25 pm
And section 1141(d)(1)(B) confirms this reading by further providing that confirmation of the plan "terminates all rights and interests of equity security holders and general partners. [read post]
24 Jun 2018, 8:51 am
Judge Mary MurguiaPlayers: Decision by Judge Murguia, joined by Judge Gould and D. [read post]
3 May 2022, 2:47 pm
Armed Forces and their spouses and children under 18 Crew members with C or D visas Individuals whose entry into the United States is in the national interest Non-citizens who have been excepted from the fully vaccinated requirement may have to attest to some or all the following upon arrival: Take a viral test 3-5 days after arrival, unless within 90 days of recovering from COVID-19. [read post]
20 Aug 2015, 2:35 pm
Oddities in the law of restrictive covenants include the following: (a) hostility in a few states to non-competes and/or non-solicit covenants in general, (b) in some states (whether by statutory provision or judicial fiat), certain employees are exempt from such covenants, (c) there are disparities in various courts’ willingness to “blue pencil,” reform, or invalidate covenants deemed overbroad as written, and (d) there are variations in… [read post]
23 Jan 2018, 6:11 pm
The claimants’ consolidated complaint named as defendants NASDAQ and certain of its officers, and asserted securities fraud claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as state law negligence claims. [read post]
