Search for: "State v. Micheli" Results 861 - 880 of 1,876
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Mar 2013, 1:12 pm by Bexis
Mich. 1992), which held:[T]he term “other paper” means a paper in the state court action that does not constitute “an amended pleading, motion, [or] order”. [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 4:04 am by Sean Wajert
Supreme Court in the Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 8:04 pm by Walter Olson
Minimum wage laws are sentimental legislation with all-too-real effects [Jeffrey Dorfman] “Our Business’s Response to California $2 Minimum Wage Increase” [Coyote, with more on a union angle on minimum wage laws] Some experience from Europe [Steve Hanke, more, Cato overview of minimum wage debate] Connecticut fires state labor department employee who gamed system to get benefits for friend, then reinstates after grievance [Raising Hale] Oldie but goodie: union… [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
  By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at all and… [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 12:16 pm by Jonathan Moore
Relying on MD Marinich, Inc v Mich Nat’l Bank, 193 Mich App 447, 453; 484 NW2d 738 (1992), the court explained that a construction lien under the CLA relates back to the day of the first actual physical improvement to the property and has priority over all interests after that first improvement, regardless of when the work giving rise to the lien was performed. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 4:19 pm
The petition in Teen Ranch, et al., v. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 4:19 pm
The petition in Teen Ranch, et al., v. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 12:35 pm by Liisa Speaker
’” People v Gioglio, 296 Mich App 12 (2012), quoting Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 688, 694; 104 St Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). [read post]