Search for: "IN THE INTEREST OF D. B., A CHILD" Results 661 - 680 of 2,181
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2019, 10:16 am by Jonathan Bailey
The other interesting aspect of the show is how the plagiarism was discovered. [read post]
At a minimum, businesses should provide information on how a consumer with a disability may access the notice in an alternative format. (999.305(a)(2)(d); 999.306(a)(2)(d); 999.307(a)(2)(d); and 999.308(a)(2)(d))The draft regulations make it clear that the notice requirement covers not only online but also offline collection of personal information. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am by Deborah Heller
Petitioner Bostock worked for the Clayton County Juvenile Court System as a child welfare services coordinator. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:40 am by Carolina Attorneys
P. 3(d) (2019).2 Plaintiff promptly filed a response to the motion to dismiss and filed a petition for writ of certiorari. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:28 am by Carolina Attorneys
§ 50-13.5(d)(1) ‘is designed to give the parties to a custody action adequate notice in order to insure a fair hearing. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:26 am by Carolina Attorneys
Because the Defendant was living at the residence with his cousin, his cousin’s girlfriend and a minor child only the common areas of the house and Defendant’s bedroom were searched initially. [read post]
27 Sep 2019, 1:21 am by Michael Lowe
” Both the federal government and the State of Texas consider the same substances to be against the public interest and in need of legal oversight as “controlled substances. [read post]
15 Sep 2019, 7:10 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
‍1 Despite subsections 800(2) and 802(2), a de­fendant may not appear or examine or cross-examine witnesses by agent if he or she is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term of more than six months, unless (a) the defendant is an organization;(b) the defendant is appearing to request an adjournment of the proceedings; or(c) the agent is authorized to do so under a program approved — or criteria established — by the… [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 5:08 am by Marty Lederman
  Indeed, both of the defendant employers in these cases, like almost all employers covered by Title VII, steadfastly insist that they don't have a policy or practice of hiring only heterosexuals—in part, no doubt, because such discrimination would be unlawful wholly apart from Title VII, but also because very few employers in the nation today would be willing to exclude all gay employees from their workforce:  such a policy or open and notorious practice would be… [read post]