Search for: "State v. Paul" Results 61 - 80 of 8,213
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jan 2010, 5:08 am
State not bound by misinformation provided by a State employee relied upon by the aggrieved individualMatter of Lewandowski v New York State & Local Police & Fire Retirement Sys., 2010 NY Slip Op 00050, decided on January 7, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department Paul Lewandowski sustained a disabling injury while working as a firefighter. [read post]
27 Oct 2008, 12:15 pm
Barnaba and the problems with the discovery process have delayed prosecution of United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2010, 5:12 am by Michael DelSignore
Justice John Paul Stevens is stepping down from the United States Supreme Court, leaving President Obama to pick another Supreme Court Justice. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 3:16 pm
Paul writes: State legislators should pay attention to the largely unnoticed U.S. [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 8:20 am by Eric
By Eric Goldman Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2024, 5:38 am by Kristen Matteucci
  In a recent episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles spoke with litigator Paul Golden about his new book, Litigating Adverse Possession Cases: Pirates v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 10:38 pm by Mary L. Dudziak
United States rely on the 1876 decision of Chy Lung v. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 6:31 pm by Kenneth Anderson
by Kenneth Anderson Over at Lawfare, UVA professor Paul Stephan talks about the ICJ decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. [read post]
14 Jul 2019, 1:01 am by rhapsodyinbooks
Paul IV’s successor, Pope Pius IV, enforced the creation of other ghettos in most Italian towns, and his successor, Pope Pius V, recommended them to other bordering states. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 3:30 am by Walter Olson
[cross-posted and expanded with a P.S. from Cato at Liberty] Even by his standards, Paul Krugman uses remarkably ugly and truculent language in challenging the good faith of those who take a view opposed to his on the case of King v. [read post]