Search for: "Judicial Correction Services Inc" Results 61 - 80 of 828
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
 Contact UC Davis Continuing and Professional Education Student Services office, at (800) 752-0881, if you have questions about this discount. [read post]
22 Mar 2023, 5:58 am by madeo-design
Her judicial service began in 1992 when President George H.W. [read post]
3 Mar 2023, 10:24 am by Arthur F. Coon
In a published opinion filed February 24, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) reversed a judgment upholding the adequacy of the EIR for the University of California, Berkeley’s long range campus development plan (“LRDP”) and a controversial housing development project at the historic People’s Park. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 5:44 am by Russell Knight
Four Boys Labor Service, Inc., 664 NE 2d 1088 – Ill: Appellate Court, 2nd Dist. 1996 Putting a subpoena receiver in jail is no small feat. [read post]
22 Jan 2023, 6:59 pm by Francis Pileggi
Issues Addressed           The Supreme Court did not address all of the issues included in the Court of Chancery’s opinion, but determined that: (1) the sole member of the MLP was the correct entity to determine the acceptability of the opinion of counsel; (2) the sole member, as the ultimate decision maker who caused the general partner to exercise the call right, reasonably relied on a formal opinion letter of the Skadden law firm; and… [read post]
11 Jan 2023, 11:33 am by Will Baude
Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 525-26 (2009) (plurality opinion). [read post]
23 Nov 2022, 6:14 am by Kirk M. Hartung
Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. [read post]
30 Sep 2022, 11:29 am by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch In re Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., — F.4th — (Fed. [read post]
19 Aug 2022, 3:20 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Ansley of Duane Morris LLP, representing Real Parties (State Water Contractors, Inc. et al) in the case. [read post]
31 Jul 2022, 10:38 am by Eric Goldman
On the plus side, it’s correct that investigatory targets usually should not be able to judicially preempt administrative investigations before they happen. [read post]