Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 7281 - 7300
of 15,316
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2018, 12:00 pm
Ct doesn’t directly address license v. sale b/c they say it’s a sale. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 4:18 pm
(Eugene Volokh) Scott Johnson (PowerLine) reports on this very interesting case (United States v. $35,131.00 in United States Currency (S.D. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 11:19 am
Introduction B. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 8:00 pm
United States 14-1535Issue: (1) Whether prosecutors are permitted to withhold materials covered by Brady v. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 10:48 am
” The CORE declaration stated that of the surgeon’s bill for $52,915, PacifiCare paid $9,665, and $35,392 was waived or written off pursuant to CORE’s agreement with PacifiCare.[2] Both declarants stated the providers had not filed liens for, and would not pursue collection of, the written-off amounts. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 8:39 am
United States v. [read post]
21 Jan 2020, 11:07 am
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rucho v. [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 1:26 pm
(Editor’s Note: This post is based on a client memorandum by Jonathan C. [read post]
27 Aug 2007, 3:00 am
State of Minnesota
• US v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 9:38 am
”Some premises are excluded from the right to manage by s,72(6) and Sch.6.Section 73 tells us what an RTM company is:“(1) This section specifies what is a RTM company.(2) A company is a RTM company in relation to premises if—(a) it is a private company limited by guarantee, and(b) its articles of association state that its object, or one of its objects, is the acquisition and exercise of the right to manage the premises. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 9:38 am
”Some premises are excluded from the right to manage by s,72(6) and Sch.6.Section 73 tells us what an RTM company is:“(1) This section specifies what is a RTM company.(2) A company is a RTM company in relation to premises if—(a) it is a private company limited by guarantee, and(b) its articles of association state that its object, or one of its objects, is the acquisition and exercise of the right to manage the premises. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 6:47 pm
State, 959 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2007), and Nixon v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 2:37 am
(See Hallock v State of New York, supra; Kelley v Chavez, 33 AD3d 590 [2006]; Town of Clarkstown v M.R.O. [read post]
10 Oct 2012, 8:44 pm
Last Monday, the United States Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in McReynolds v. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 8:43 am
Since Monell, the Supreme Court has articulated that Monell liability may attach where the local government promulgates (a) a formal policy or (b) an informal custom that has the force of law and (c) fails to train its employees. [read post]
14 Feb 2020, 9:52 am
Most of the focus was probably on safe harbors b/c players were bigger on both sides: telcos v. big content providers. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 2:52 pm
Union v. [read post]
7 Apr 2009, 10:55 am
S. 332 (1943) and Mallory v. [read post]
16 Nov 2014, 7:38 pm
C. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 10:21 am
State, 506 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and (b) there was insufficient evidence as to whether he had in fact failed to be “gainfully employed. [read post]
