Search for: "State v Wilds" Results 641 - 660 of 1,502
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Oct 2015, 3:00 pm by Nancy E. Halpern, DVM, Esq.
With the ban on the breeding of captive cetaceans, these are just a few of the studies which will no longer be possible: Vergara, V., Barrett-Lennard, L.G. 2008. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 12:35 pm by Beth Graham
In the pending investor-state-dispute-settlement case under an older but parallel North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) investment clause, an American pharmaceutical company, in Eli Lilly v. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 5:38 am by SHG
  Was this a joke of the sort that Wild Bill Douglas made when he wrote Brady v. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 1:42 pm
For a similar (though not identical) case, see the Where the Wild Libel Lawsuits Are case from the Texas Supreme Court (New Times, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 3:23 pm by Schachtman
It is not all about putting a DSM-V diagnosis on the chart, and prescribing medication. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 10:29 am by Kent Scheidegger
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held oral argument yesterday in Jones v. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 6:02 am by Robert A. Epstein
Believe it or not, the Rules Governing the Courts for the State of New Jersey contain an entire section specifically devoted to family law practice – Part V – Rules Governing Practice in the Chancery Division, Family Part. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 10:50 am
It’s clear, then, that I’m not wild about Justice Scalia’s theory of why statutory interpretation isn’t an exercise of delegated power. [read post]
30 Aug 2015, 6:42 pm by Joy Waltemath
Summary judgment was therefore granted on her Title VII and state law claims (Graves v. [read post]
15 Aug 2015, 5:49 am
These relationships are not restricted to the government, but yes to the whole society, through a set of essential practices for the maintenance of the state. [read post]
The Supreme Court yesterday handed down judgment in TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 40, in which the Court held that a breach of the family tracing duty in Regulation 6 of the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005 does not affect the rule in Ravichandran requiring asylum applications to be decided on the facts existing at the date of decision. [read post]