Search for: "State v. Code"
Results 8721 - 8740
of 27,233
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jul 2007, 12:35 am
The reasoning of the Supreme Court's decision in United Savings Ass'n v. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 7:42 am
Clark v. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 1:18 pm
United States and Carabell v. [read post]
6 Feb 2010, 6:30 am
Code Ann. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 5:19 am
Code § 2515 to the issue concerning the emails in this case. [read post]
11 May 2008, 4:14 am
After a series of challenges, the United States Supreme Court approved the condemnation in Kelo v. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 10:43 am
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court held that service advisors at car dealerships are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirement under an exemption for any “salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles …” (Encino Motorcars, LLC v. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 4:38 pm
For example, the Supreme Court had held that an LPA is maintainable against a judgment given by a single judge under: (a) s. 76(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1940 (National Sewing Thread Co v James Chadwick—a three-judge Bench); (b) s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Vinita Khanolkar v Pai—a two-judge Bench); (c) s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Sharda Devi v State of Bihar—a three-judge Bench); (d) s. 299 of the Indian Succession Act,… [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 8:33 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 7:15 am
United States 13-983Issue: Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 6:21 am
Mountain States Tel. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 11:27 am
At Tuesday’s oral argument in United Student Aid Funds v. [read post]
7 Aug 2016, 8:00 pm
The minority stated that the majority’s approach was seriously flawed. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 6:30 am
In State v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 11:26 am
Code, tit. 27, § 151 et seq.). [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 11:12 am
v. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 7:18 pm
“Guilty Pleas and Sentence Enhancement: State v. [read post]
3 Jun 2012, 12:09 pm
Whelan Associates, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 3:57 pm
In Wollmer v. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division's ruling states:"The article 78 court correctly determined, upon consideration of all the facts, that respondents' denial of petitioner's application for reinstatement to his former position with NYCHA was not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Roberts v Gavin, 96 AD3d 669, 671 [1st Dept 2012]). [read post]
