Search for: "State v. B. V." Results 7961 - 7980 of 41,777
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm by McNabb Associates, P.C.
(c) The Contracting Parties shall endeavor to complete the process described in subparagraph (b) prior to the scheduled accession of a new Member State, or as soon as possible thereafter. [read post]
19 May 2011, 1:00 pm by McNabb Associates, P.C.
Article 4(2) specifies three categories of offenses that shall not be considered to be political offenses: (a) a murder or other willful crime against the person of a Head of State of one of the Contracting Parties, or of a member of the Head of State’s family; (b) an offense for which both Contracting Parties are obliged pursuant to a multilateral international agreement to extradite the person sought or to submit the case to their competent authorities for a… [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 8:52 am by John Jascob
By Matthew Garza, J.D.An investment adviser that managed a Bermuda-based fund failed to convince the Sixth Circuit that the limitations on extra-territorial application of Exchange Act Section 10(b) established by Morrison v. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 8:55 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 4:12 am by Maxwell Kennerly
Before either of those cases were decided, if a judge read a plaintiff's complaint and thought that the claim was "implausible," they would dismiss it under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. [read post]
30 Aug 2007, 4:26 pm
In a sweeping ruling reminiscent of trial court decisions from Washington State, San Francisco, New York City and Baltimore that have been issued in recent years, Robert B. [read post]
30 Aug 2007, 4:26 pm
In a sweeping ruling reminiscent of trial court decisions from Washington State, San Francisco, New York City and Baltimore that have been issued in recent years, Robert B. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 3:17 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
” Subsection (b) states that a judge’s expressed opinion on a legal or factual issue presented in the proceeding is not by itself disqualifying unless the judge has formed an unqualified belief as to the merits of that particular action. [read post]