Search for: "Marshall v. Marshall" Results 6261 - 6280 of 6,382
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Apr 2007, 3:15 pm
Thus the 2001 possession Order was no longer enforceable and, via Marshall v Bradford MC, the Court had no powers under s.85 to enforce or vary the order. [read post]
19 Apr 2007, 1:03 pm
About fifteen minutes ago a Marshall jury in Judge Ward's court found for the plaintiff in QPSX Development 5 PTY LTD v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 2:26 pm
And the Court, relying on a 1974 precedent that had to do with drug rehab as an alternative to time in prison (Marshall v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 8:03 am
" Quoting from a 1974 ruling (Marshall v. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 11:14 pm
News Article: LINKEric Goldman's Blog Article: LINK1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2007, 4:21 am
April 2, 2007).* Federal deputy marshal's executing a court order for forfeiture had immunity under the order. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 11:30 am
Sixty Famous Cases 10 v. (1956) Van Winkle, Marshall. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 9:07 am
This sort of uncertainty is typical in litigation of this sort -- one reason why I like to show my students in Constitutional Law the excellent film about Brown v. [read post]
2 Apr 2007, 7:13 pm
For instance, in the 1964 case of Sheldon v. [read post]
2 Apr 2007, 3:15 am
DWI repeat increase fineLast Act: 03/27/07 referred to transportation LAW / CORRECTNSA7135 Tedisco (MS) -- Requires department of motor vehicles to provide police officers with information on level 3 sex offenders based on license or registration inquiry BLURB : V & T L. level 3 sex offenders Last Act: 03/29/07 referred to transportation LAW / CORRECTNSA7153 Finch (MS) -- Provides that prisoners charged with crimes in state facilities who will… [read post]
29 Mar 2007, 6:49 pm
Perhaps the most interesting decision was Hurley v. [read post]
26 Mar 2007, 10:49 am
We'll let readers draw their own conclusions, but offer up a few other fun observations from our research: * Together, John Marshall (of Marbury v. [read post]