Search for: "Childs v. Gross" Results 761 - 780 of 875
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jul 2018, 7:30 am
Kavanaugh has not ruled directly on the validity of Roe v. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 7:20 am by Rory Little
United States, 2015) – the Justice’s jokingly self-imposed descriptor as a “poster child” for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers hits close to reality. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 6:24 am by Joy Waltemath
The defendants were protected by qualified immunity in all other respects (Raspardo v Carlone, October 6, 2014, Droney, C). [read post]
19 Jan 2023, 2:11 pm by Michael Oykhman
Under s.490.011(1)(a) a designated offence means an offence under any of the following provisions: subsection 7(4.1) (offence in relation to sexual offences against children), section 151 (sexual interference); section 152 (invitation to sexual touching); section 153 (sexual exploitation); section 153.1 (sexual exploitation of person with disability); section 155 (incest); Section 160(1) (bestiality); subsection 160(2) (compelling the commission of bestiality); subsection 160(3) (bestiality in… [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 8:47 pm by Vikram Raghavan
As several newspapers have reported, the Supreme Court in Remdeo Chauhan v. [read post]
Subchapter V – Return to Work Reporting Requirement Employers have a method to report if an employee refuses to return to work Plain language about returning to work Subchapter VI – Other Related Provisions and Technical Corrections Pay an extra $100 per week to individuals who have at least $5,000 a year in self-employment income, but are disqualified from receiving Pandemic Unemployment Assistance because they are not eligible for regular state unemployment benefits. [read post]
21 May 2015, 10:19 am by John Elwood
Though the plan created districts roughly equal in total population, the appellants contend that it nevertheless contains “gross disparities in voters or potential voters,” and thereby runs afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “one person, one vote” principle under Reynolds v. [read post]