Search for: "In Re Standing Order With Reasons Regarding Objections"
Results 841 - 860
of 1,199
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2013, 2:12 pm
As I explain (in rather painful length) below the fold, I think there are formidable legal and policy obstacles standing in the way of any such proposal–obstacles that would largely (albeit not entirely) dissipate in the context of after-the-fact damages actions. [read post]
5 Feb 2013, 12:35 pm
Regarding those, the dates the government proposed earlier are no longer feasible, for operational security reasons that prosecutor Anthony Mattivi says he cannot describe in open court. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 7:38 pm
In addition to its conclusions regarding termination and jurisdiction, the court noted in its termination order that it did not think DCF had made reasonable efforts to follow its initial case plan goal of reunifying C.P. with his parents, but it invited DCF to request reconsideration of this part of its order. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 8:29 pm
Roughly in order of least to most plausible: a. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 9:04 am
By William W. [read post]
22 Dec 2012, 11:24 am
In a one-page order filed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on August 31 granting allocatur, the Supreme Court noted that it will review the issue of "whether the Superior Court's interpretation of Pa.R.C.P. [read post]
28 Nov 2012, 12:40 pm
Several reasons contribute to the underreporting of sexual assault cases. [read post]
27 Oct 2012, 10:25 am
It partly reflects an increasing anxiety among them about what all that might mean if the situation is no longer what that widely-commented, initial New York Times’s front page story on the kill-list committees seemed to regard as the philosopher-king making these decisions – but a Republican. [read post]
22 Oct 2012, 10:37 pm
As things now stand, there is a big gap to bridge between the two trans-Atlantic approaches, i n many ways, so close. [read post]
22 Oct 2012, 6:58 pm
That is, the judge should measure the reasonableness of an attorney’s conduct based on objective criteria, as opposed to an attorney’s “internal belief”. [read post]
28 Sep 2012, 12:04 am
That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 4:15 pm
Natural Res. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 1:53 am
But as things stand, it does not appear that this scandal is, by itself, going to change the market. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 2:32 pm
Essentially, in order to satisfy the statutory serious injury threshold, the legislature requires objective proof of a plaintiff's injury. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:22 am
The Court of Appeal recently upheld the use of pre-litigation agreements to suspend the statute of limitations (with all parties,’ including real parties’) consent, in order to facilitate reasonable efforts to settle CEQA claims before expensive lawsuits are filed and pursued on CEQA’s tight timelines. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:22 am
The Court of Appeal recently upheld the use of pre-litigation agreements to suspend the statute of limitations (with all parties,’ including real parties’) consent, in order to facilitate reasonable efforts to settle CEQA claims before expensive lawsuits are filed and pursued on CEQA’s tight timelines. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 9:39 pm
Because the statute requires an order before collecting the evidence, denying the application for the order effectively enjoins the government from collecting the evidence (without the formality of a motion for injunctive relief). [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
However, because of "some ambiguity" in the court's prior order in regard to the receiver's authority to accept an offer structured as a stock redemption, Justice Driscoll grants the receiver's alternative request to re-open the bidding. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
However, because of "some ambiguity" in the court's prior order in regard to the receiver's authority to accept an offer structured as a stock redemption, Justice Driscoll grants the receiver's alternative request to re-open the bidding. [read post]
26 Aug 2012, 10:00 pm
However, because of “some ambiguity” in the court’s prior order in regard to the receiver’s authority to accept an offer structured as a stock redemption, Justice Driscoll grants the receiver’s alternative request to re-open the bidding. [read post]
