Search for: "York v. South Carolina"
Results 741 - 760
of 930
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2010, 4:26 pm
It took some convincing on the part of the new Church, and a change in the law by Parliament, before the Archbishops of Canterbury and York could be persuaded to ordain the candidates from America (Bishop Seabury of Connecticut grew tired of waiting, and was ordained in Scotland). [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:08 pm
Title: Placer Dome, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 5:28 am
Joining on the latest brief were Indiana, Arkansas, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 3:00 am
FN6 The 21 states using the ‘50 percent’ modified form: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 10:36 pm
The unincorporated association of dioceses which constitutes the Episcopal Church (USA) was at first named as a defendant in the All Saints Waccamaw litigation in South Carolina, but soon thereafter it began appearing as a plaintiff, the instigator of a lawsuit. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 2:47 pm
LEXIS 97202 (D SC, Sept. 16, 2010), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 2:58 am
" Schulmeyer v. [read post]
12 Sep 2010, 12:03 pm
Only one South Carolina case discusses this issue, Widman v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
Restatement Third §2 would be a significant revision of Alaska law - sort of like what just happened in South Carolina.ArizonaLower Arizona courts have followed the Restatement Third §2 on the rationale that, in general, Arizona law has adopted the principles of the Restatement of Torts. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 12:10 pm
Illinois in 2008; Virginia in 2007; South Carolina in 2002; Indiana in 1986; New York in 1978; etc. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 9:24 am
Click Here DECISIONS Arkema, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 2:41 pm
Super Aug. 2, 2010) (some citations omitted).Then along comes the South Carolina Supreme Court, and (as we also mentioned before) it does a number on the purported duty to test in Branham v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 5:00 am
Here is a free legal opinion thanks to the Student Press Law Center: New York Times Company v. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 8:19 am
After the appellate court sent the South Carolina case back to the trial court in March 2004, Bishop Griswold might have thought his litigation expenses would lighten a bit, but events proved differently. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 8:02 am
Mohr v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 7:20 am
In Buck v. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 7:05 am
But the passage rate of students from ABA-accredited schools in New York was 88%. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 7:58 pm
The South Carolina Supreme Court in Angle Joe Perrie Vasquez v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 11:15 am
Department of Justice and the South Coast Air Quality Management District announced that Lifoam Industries, Inc. will pay $450,000 in fines, claiming the company violated the federal Clean Air Act and state air quality laws at its polystyrene manufacturing facility at 2340 E. 52 Street in Vernon, Calif. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am
– Trading Markets.com, July 21, 2010 Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2010, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with 163 defendants (each of which is identified in the proposed Decree) in United States of America v. [read post]
