Search for: "State v. Holderness"
Results 7441 - 7460
of 8,253
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2009, 9:40 am
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 7:08 am
Holder, 08-1449). [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 3:00 pm
See Turcios v. [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 11:33 am
Why was this mediator providing a sworn declaration to support State Farm's case against the policy holder? [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 9:46 pm
I am thankful to my friend Eugene White for drawing to my attention a recent case from the ACT where a solicitor, David Landers, had some difficulties in dealing with ACT authorities on behalf of his client, a teacher who wanted to retire and get a payout due to illness.Because of the significance of this decision, I have set out the judgment in full.DAVID LANDER v COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY[2009] ACTSC 117 (11 September 2009)APPEAL - Appeal against… [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 2:37 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 4:54 am
Chicago, the first employment law case of this term, and Holder v. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 7:04 am
Holder, 09-89). [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 7:02 am
Opinion below (6th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Petitioner's reply Docket: 08-1498 ; 09-89 Title: Holder, Attorney General v. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 3:44 am
United States - concerning the Armed Career Criminal Act and state convictions for batteryBloate v. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 9:14 pm
The parties to the Authors’ Guild et al. v. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 12:40 pm
The fact that you get thrown out of the United States forever because the USPS messed up is, well, tough.But Judge Kleinfeld's dissent is a perfect example of a different type of reasoning; in a way, a different type of judging. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 4:27 am
In an unpublished decision (Madaminova v. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 5:13 pm
Opinion below (6th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Petitioner’s reply Docket: 08-1498 ; 09-89 Title: Holder, Attorney General v. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 6:03 pm
He states that "annuities are valued more cost advantageously for defendants than lump sums because of the CMS required "set-off" method for calculating present value". [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 10:29 am
U.S. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 9:47 am
Holder. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 9:14 am
See, e.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 1:36 pm
I had not planned to blog about this decision, announced yesterday, in Skelos v. [read post]
