Search for: "State v. D. M." Results 741 - 760 of 9,840
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Oct 2014, 5:40 am by David DePaolo
I'm in Austin, TX, for the next couple of days.My Aunt Gail died late last week after a protracted fight with cancer, so the extended family is here to both commiserate and celebrate - last night we drank some wine, ate some pasta, and did lots of hugging.Today we'll attend services, probably shed some tears, and then drink more wine, eat more pasta, and do more hugging.It's all so Italian...In between the family activities I'll be meeting with some Texas workers'… [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 7:57 am by WSLL
Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. [read post]
8 Nov 2016, 11:10 am
At or around 2:30 p.m., she called her adult daughter in Ohio and stated “[s]he was feeling depressed,” “no one care[d] for her,” “she was going to end her life,” and “she can’t handle [her boyfriend]. [read post]
7 Apr 2021, 4:00 am by Administrator
Hamilton Health Sciences, 2021 HRTO 213 (CanLII) [113] This Tribunal stated in Moore v. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 5:08 pm by Kevin LaCroix
The result has been that the public company D&O insurers now generally insist on a separate retention for M&A litigation (usually set as high as $1 million or more), in order to reduce the chance of high frequency deal-related litigation producing significant D&O insurance loss costs. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Thind Revisited, (Georgetown Journal of Law & Modern Critical Race Perspectives 7 (2015): 1-42).Timothy Zick, First Amendment Cosmopolitanism, Skepticism, and Democracy, (Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2015).Margaret M. [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 7:43 am by Ashwin Varma
First, it’s worth stating that the kinds of acquisitions that have become an important part of the biopharma R&D ecosystem are not large horizontal mergers between existing biopharmaceutical companies. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 4:26 pm
  To put it differently, if I were writing on a blank slate, I'd hold that there's federal Article III standing, but it nonetheless seems to me that such a position can't  be reasonably squared with the Supreme Court's decision in Arizonans for Official Language v. [read post]