Search for: "In Re Justin S." Results 761 - 780 of 1,735
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jul 2016, 4:19 pm by Shahid Buttar
During the July 13 briefing announcing the new Fourth Amendment Caucus, founding member Justin Amash (R-MI) explained its ambitions: It’s important that we have this kind of group in Congress to stop [proposals to expand surveillance powers] before they become law, and before they have a chance to violate the rights of Americans. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 11:23 am by Kent Scheidegger
"We had to listen ... to all this talk about 'poor Justin,'" he said. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 12:39 pm by Administrator
Avoid A Claim Legal FeedsLakehead law grads hit hiring obstacle As Lakehead University’s first round of law grads hit the job market this year, it seems they’re coming up against some barriers from the profession. [read post]
15 Jul 2016, 6:00 am by Joanna Herzik
Now’s the time to start thinking about tickets to the big game! [read post]
7 Jul 2016, 3:08 am by Cari Rincker
  Where there is no familial bond among half-siblings, visitation is usually denied, as it was in the case of  In re Justin H., 215 A.D.2d 180 (1995). [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 9:30 pm by Justin Daniel
” As part of the North American Leaders’ Summit this week, President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and President Enrique Pena Nieto of Mexico announced a pledge to generate 50% of North America’s electrical power from renewable sources by 2025, a goal that will be achieved through a range of initiatives, including collaborating on cross-border transmission projects for renewable energy and strengthening energy efficiency standards in all three… [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 7:12 am by Jon Ibanez
Notwithstanding Middleton’s prior criminal history, he maintained a valid Texas driver’s license. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 12:13 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Useful features, not patentable features; patents are a cheat sheet but ultimately we’re concerned about utility. [read post]
22 May 2016, 3:00 am by INFORRM
It also was the case that she had read the material previously and so the defendant argued because she had read it before, re-reading it was not enough to prove publication. [read post]