Search for: "Does 1 - 29" Results 7881 - 7900 of 13,860
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Dec 2023, 4:53 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” (ABS Partnership v AirTran Airways, (AD 3d 24, 29 [1st Dept 2003].) [read post]
26 Feb 2016, 7:22 am by Michael Geist
EFF argues that the change has enormous implications: What does this surreptitious change from “paragraph” to “subparagraph” mean? [read post]
23 May 2010, 2:40 am
The Committee also repeats its recommendation that France make torture an imprescriptible crime (§13).Secondly, the Committee reproaches France its "priority procedure" for asylum requests, which does not provide for suspensive appeals. [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 9:01 am by Eugene Volokh
On Sept. 29, several TPUSA members passed out stickers featuring a hammer and sickle with the caption "CHINA KINDA SUS" — slang for "suspicious. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 2:18 pm by Sasha Volokh
What, if anything, does this tell us about public-employee pensions? [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 8:41 am by CLARE MONTGOMERY QC
Cranston J held that Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 24, [2012] 1 AC 531 had no application to the judicial review of search warrants as the common law right to information does not arise fro consideration [39]. [read post]
23 May 2007, 4:15 pm
  Specifically, the adviser failed to disclose that the deferred tax benefit is almost always offset by (1) higher fees and surrender charges and (2) higher tax rates.If you believe your broker has defrauded you, please contact THE HAYES LAW FIRM at 1-866-332-3567 and visit our web site at www.dhayeslaw.com   <a href="[www.blogtopsites.com] style="border:none;" src="[www.blogtopsites.com]" alt="Law… [read post]
7 Nov 2010, 6:55 pm by cdw
LEXIS 22590 (5th Cir 10/29/2010) “[E]vidence does not rebut the presumption of correctness that attaches to the state habeas court’s conclusion that Maldonado did not meet his burden of establishing mental retardation. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 9:46 am by Bryan Hawkins
  Any such optimism was extinguished on May 29, 2019 when the California legislature passed AB 5 and Governor Newsom signed the bill this past Wednesday. [read post]
31 May 2016, 5:57 am by Mark S. Humphreys
" Relief under Rule 56(d) is not warranted if either (1) the proffered basis does not present a reasonable likelihood that further discovery would produce evidence creating a fact issue, or (2) such evidence would not create fact issues for each essential element of the nonmovant's claim. [read post]