Search for: "State v. C. R."
Results 6241 - 6260
of 13,583
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Dec 2016, 12:06 pm
In Hassell v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 2:42 pm
R. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 12:02 pm
., Campbell County, WY v. [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 3:00 am
The case of the day, Sea Search Armada v. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 6:03 am
R. [read post]
19 Dec 2020, 12:29 pm
” United States v. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 4:15 am
As a determination by the WCB regarding workers' compensation benefits, and a determination by a municipal employer regarding statutory benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a, are separate and distinct matters, which the Court of Appeals had made clear in Matter of Balcerak v County of Nassau (94 NY2d 253), “[a] municipality's obligation to pay wages and medical costs under General Municipal Law §207-a or § 207-c is in no way dependent upon… [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 4:52 am
Cronin, the principal of a consulting firm specializing in the areas of fire protection, fire safety, and fire analysis.Cronin stated that a blocked interior staircase at the premises constituted a safety hazard that increased the likelihood of harm to the Alcalde.As Riley's son-in-law had indicated that Riley resided in the house around the time of the fire, the Appellate Division concluded that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Riley had actual or constructive notice of… [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 4:01 pm
Facts of the Cases In the case of DiCarlo v. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 11:03 am
Effient® products contain prasugrel hydrochloride, which is also known as 5-[(1RS)-2-cyclopropyl-1-(2-fluorophenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridin-2-yl acetate hydrochloride or 2-acetoxy-5-(alpha-cyclopropylcarbonyl-2-fluorobenzy1)-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridine hydrochloride, and is covered by the '726 patent. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 9:42 am
R. [read post]
5 May 2019, 4:58 am
R. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 9:59 am
According to a 2010 New York State Unified Court System report, the New York state court system has adopted Commercial Division Uniform Rule 8(b) and Uniform Trial Court Rule 202.12(c)(3), requiring parties to meet-and-confer on ESI-related issues before the preliminary conference in court. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 10:13 am
Cohen v. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 9:01 pm
Leslie C. [read post]
31 Oct 2019, 4:25 am
In Harris, the state court below went for approach C. [read post]
4 Nov 2022, 12:12 pm
From Doe v. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 3:41 pm
In Perkins v. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 4:28 am
Case: Smith v. [read post]
