Search for: "Held v. State"
Results 6241 - 6260
of 82,195
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jun 2012, 11:27 am
In Cosmetic Procedures Clinic of North Dallas v. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 6:00 am
The court did not decide whether an out-of-state law could serve as a predicate for a UCL claim because no out-of-state laws were involved.Process Specialties, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 7:13 am
United States (1908) and Indian trust doctrine under United States v. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 1:02 pm
People of the State of New York v. [read post]
12 Jun 2025, 1:04 pm
However, the Court held this reasoning was flawed. [read post]
21 May 2008, 2:57 pm
The much-awaited New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in Baxter v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 11:43 am
Foster v. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 5:34 am
Ervin v. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 8:00 am
Aryeh v. [read post]
6 Jan 2009, 4:30 am
Chochorowski, et al. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 10:51 am
In granting the Defendant’s motion, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that plaintiff failed to state a claim because she did not to set forth “any approximation of the number of unpaid overtime hours worked . . . or any approximation of the amount of wages due. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 1:47 pm
On July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court decided an important state law issue raised by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 10:00 pm
” To read, “Kappos v. [read post]
23 May 2008, 10:18 am
The Trial Court had held that the residency rule violated state law under O.R.C. sec. 9.481, which purports to prohibit political subdivisions from requiring their employees to live where they work, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 4:05 am
" In Rundus v. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 5:17 am
Feb. 15, 2008), unanimously held that the Arizona state constitution requires a jury trial for misdemeanor charges that could lead to sex offender registration. [read post]
2 Sep 2012, 8:34 am
The case is UNITED STATES v. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 4:35 am
In Taslimi v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 4:40 pm
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the regulation of water deliveries from the State Water Project and Central Valley Project to protect the threatened delta smelt did not violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 6:42 am
(SD Kohli v. [read post]
