Search for: "IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULE 6-9(b)(5) OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS" Results 61 - 80 of 339
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jan 2021, 9:27 am by Arnold Wadsworth Coggins
A final amended order from the hearing was entered on May 6, 2016 (the Temporary Order). [read post]
First 2020 Extraordinary Session Suspension of capital stock stack for small businesses Act 15 (S.B. 6), 2020 1st. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 5:48 am by Phil Dixon
The North Carolina Supreme Court previously rejected this argument in In re Kivett, 309 N.C. 635, 670 (1983), which defeated this claim. [read post]
31 May 2020, 7:10 am by Russell Knight
Pretrial Conferences According To The Illinois Supreme Court Rules. [read post]
28 May 2020, 5:29 am by Schachtman
”[5] This rejection of the clear demands of a statute has infected even the intermediate appellate United States Court of Appeals. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Court said that §80 of the Civil Service Law "reflects a legislative imperative" that the City was powerless to bargain away.As the Court of Appeals said in County of Chautauqua v. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Court said that §80 of the Civil Service Law "reflects a legislative imperative" that the City was powerless to bargain away.As the Court of Appeals said in County of Chautauqua v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Court said that §80 of the Civil Service Law "reflects a legislative imperative" that the City was powerless to bargain away.As the Court of Appeals said in County of Chautauqua v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Court said that §80 of the Civil Service Law "reflects a legislative imperative" that the City was powerless to bargain away.As the Court of Appeals said in County of Chautauqua v. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 6:03 am by Chris Wesner
Thus, 5 CasCea3s:e1:93-b:1k9-3-c0v8-202036D3o-TcM1R80DocFi#le:d1604F/2ile7d/2: 004/2E7n/t2e0rePda0g4e/:268/o2f02009:P2A1:G16EIDD#e: s8c02Main Document Page 6 of 20 the Bankruptcy Court rejected Petitioning Creditors’ primary argument in response to the motion. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 9:55 am by Jonathan Holbrook
The appellate court affirmed the findings and rulings denying the suppression motion. [read post]