Search for: "Arizona Supreme Court"
Results 6521 - 6540
of 9,060
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jan 2011, 12:22 pm
It's complicated and convoluted enough that the Supreme Court keeps clarifying what the drafters of the 2005 Bankruptcy Amendments really meant!) [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 5:25 pm
Supreme Court upheld the provision granting local police to check the immigration status of a person. [read post]
3 Jun 2021, 8:50 am
(Law Technology Today, 2019) The Power of Hybridizing Your Flat Fee (Law Practice Today, May 2021) Growing Your Practice Through Alternative Revenue Streams (Avvo’s Lawyernomics, 2018) Again, check for updates to Mass BBO ethics articles here in addition to the following: The Ethics of Charging and Collecting Fees (Mass BBO, 2015) Flat Fees: A Three-Dimensional View (Mass BBO, 2018) An Exception that Proves the Rule: Fee Sharing with Nonlawyer Qualified Legal Assistance… [read post]
17 Mar 2018, 6:15 am
She received notification the day before the public announcement that she was going to be nominated by President Reagan to the Supreme Court, though she hadn’t known she was even a finalist for the position at the time. [read post]
26 Jun 2010, 6:51 am
Pruitt's work seeks to revive legal consideration of spatial variations in provision of government services, a concern that waned following the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in San Antonio Independent Schools v. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 6:55 am
Because the federal appeals courts were split on the issue of just what constitutes “filing,” the Supreme Court. [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 11:56 am
Supreme Court. [read post]
14 Jun 2009, 9:41 pm
The Court held that absent concerns over confidentiality, privacy and the best interests of the state, Arizona Supreme Court precedent has made it clear that reports of ongoing police investigations are generally not exempt from Arizona's public records law, and as such, disclosure is required. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 11:48 am
Until the Supreme Court weighs in on the split between the Circuits, employers located in those states covered by the Ninth Circuit – Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington – will need to ensure that employees are provided a “completely relieved from duty” meal period, or risk being in violation of the FLSA. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 11:48 am
Until the Supreme Court weighs in on the split between the Circuits, employers located in those states covered by the Ninth Circuit – Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington – will need to ensure that employees are provided a “completely relieved from duty” meal period, or risk being in violation of the FLSA. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 2:17 pm
So to move along the anticipated celebratory wishes of Thomas’s enemies, the long-expected disciplinary hearings finally began last Monday, September 12, 2011 in Arizona’s Supreme Court. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 1:51 pm
Yavapai-Apache Nation Tribal Court Chief Judge, Verde Valley of Arizona. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 10:26 am
The Supreme Court began with a statement of legal principles governing inherent sanctioning power. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 3:49 am
Yesterday, the court sent five Arizona cases challenging life-without-parole sentences of juvenile offenders back to the state courts for reconsideration in light of last term’s decision in Montgomery v. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 4:54 am
In closing, we note, as the Supreme Court did in Leon, that the test for reasonable police conduct is objective. 468 U.S. at 919 n.20, 104 S. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 5:49 pm
In Arizona v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 3:20 pm
Supreme Court that both state and federal minimum wage laws are perfectly constitutional. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 7:53 am
” Arizona v. [read post]
19 May 2011, 8:37 am
Who knows if the 3rd Court panel will approve the warrant, or for that matter whether the Court of Criminal Appeals will be as firm in upholding the particularity requirement as was the Texas Supreme Court. [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 12:30 pm
But the law is enforced before administrative law judges who, under a recent Supreme Court case, haven't been strictly speaking constitutionally appointed. [read post]
