Search for: "May v. State" Results 6401 - 6420 of 119,555
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
However, in its December 5, 2013 opinion in Venecia V. v August V., the Appellate Division, First Department, held that no malpractice had been committed, and no hearing was required to reach that conclusion. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 11:15 am
On December 15, the United States Supreme Court released its opinion in Heien v. [read post]
4 Feb 2010, 2:15 pm by Brian Evans
Sadly, this is the classic “Finality v. [read post]
20 May 2022, 7:35 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
The Rules of Civil Procedure state the following about corporate examinations: (a) the examining party may examine any officer, director or employee on behalf of the corporation, but the court, on motion of the corporation before the examination, may order the examining party to examine another officer, director or employee; and (b) the examining party may examine more than one officer, director or employee only with the consent of the parties or the leave of the… [read post]
20 May 2022, 7:35 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
The Rules of Civil Procedure state the following about corporate examinations: (a) the examining party may examine any officer, director or employee on behalf of the corporation, but the court, on motion of the corporation before the examination, may order the examining party to examine another officer, director or employee; and (b) the examining party may examine more than one officer, director or employee only with the consent of the parties or the leave of the… [read post]
In addition to the key case of Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern [2010] ECR I-1449 numerous other authorities such as Kaur [2001] All ER (EC) 250, McCarthy [2011] All ER (EC) 729 Zambrano [2011] ECR I-1177 and Dereci [2011] ECR I-11315 were analysed and applied to his case. [read post]
18 May 2007, 5:58 am by Denese Dominguez
The Court determined that, based upon the clear language of Section 9-106 of the Education Article, the State Board may only grant waivers of provisions applying to all public schools, and not those specific to just public charter schools, and therefore Title 9's provisions were not subject to waiver under Section 9-106(b). [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 4:50 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
CHA Hollywood Medical Center (here) that removal of a state court case to federal court may be triggered by defendant’s own investigation of the facts supporting removal. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 4:50 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
CHA Hollywood Medical Center (here) that removal of a state court case to federal court may be triggered by defendant’s own investigation of the facts supporting removal. [read post]