Search for: "State v. Mai" Results 8081 - 8100 of 133,208
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Feb 2009, 9:00 pm
Just two months later, Chicagoans hid their faces in shame, as the state legislature impeached and convicted Governor Rod Blagojevich.Four months ago, Chicago defense lawyers hid their faces in grief, as the Fifth District Court of Appeals (downstate of Chicago, by the way) decided De Bouse v. [read post]
The United States and the Kingdom of Sweden Thursday filed declarations of intervention in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of Ukraine v. [read post]
4 Aug 2016, 12:32 pm
The state had previously filed a compliant brief that covered many of the same points, but we ordered replacement briefs in light of Daire v. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 12:21 pm by Cecere Santana, P.A.
More Blog Posts: Unexplained South Florida Accidents May Be the Result of Distracted Driving, Cecere Santana Injury Lawyers Blog, published May 3, 2016. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 9:12 am by David Gans
Maryland Court of Appeals, holding that individuals may not sue a state government employer for money damages for violating the self-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act. [read post]
28 Jul 2012, 5:44 pm by INFORRM
The appeal by way of case stated in the “Twitter joke” case (Chambers v DPP) has been allowed. [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 11:36 pm
The School of Industrial Relations at Cornell University may have discriminated against a professor on the basis of age and gender, the Second Circuit has ruled in a decision which fleshes out the legal framework for resolving these cases and remands this case for trial.The case is Liebowitz v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 3:10 pm by Lawrence Cunningham
A divorcing couple whose assets included a Madoff ponzi scheme account must abide by the terms of their contract, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously ruled today in the closely-followed case of Simkin v. [read post]
4 Dec 2015, 4:00 am
The statement was made out of court so the “declarant” (person who made the statement) is unable to be cross-examined.The tricky part: hearsay may be admitted if the statement is not offered prove the truth of what was actually stated. [read post]