Search for: "State v. Bill" Results 7301 - 7320 of 19,714
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2023, 3:43 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Thereafter, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on documentary evidence, the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the failure to state a cause of action. [read post]
22 Jul 2024, 5:13 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) because he failed to state a cause of action (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]). [read post]
10 Sep 2015, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Some guidelines for obtaining DNA samples from sworn officers “to protect the crime scene” Bill v Brewer, USCA, 9th Circuit, Docket #13-15844In this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. [read post]
13 Oct 2013, 5:44 am by Timothy P. Flynn
Bursch, and Detroit lawyer George Washington in the affirmative action case of Schuette -v- Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 7:03 am by Gritsforbreakfast
By Kerr's reckoning, their arguments were "essentially playing out the majority and dissenting opinions in United States v. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 7:35 am by Bill
I'm holding some papers in the ABC v. [read post]
20 Nov 2017, 3:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity” (Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US], 134 AD3d 610, 615; see Putnam County Temple & Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. [read post]
23 May 2018, 3:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity” (Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US], 134 AD3d 610, 615 [2015]; see Putnam County Temple & Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 10:14 am
On June 30, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt signed a bill that updates the state's stalking and harassment statutes. [read post]
1 May 2012, 2:08 pm by AALRR
Keating, the Supreme Court held the FAA applies to state courts and is intended to preempt state anti-arbitration laws to the contrary, and in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 11:49 am
Our San Francisco insurance lawyers were excited to see the California Supreme Court’s decision in State of California v. [read post]