Search for: "VINCENT v. VINCENT"
Results 861 - 880
of 1,262
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V (1) Extradition shall not be granted if: (a) the person sought would, if proceeded against in the territory of the requested Party for the offense for which his extradition is requested, be entitled to be discharged on the grounds of a previous acquittal or conviction in the territory of the requesting or requested Party or of a third State; or (b) the prosecution for the offense for which extradition is requested has become barred by lapse of time according to the law of the… [read post]
13 May 2011, 8:59 am
In connection with the proposed reinstatement, and in an attempt to remain in compliance with the change-in-control provisions of the credit agreement (described below), the Committee's plan provided that Vincent Young, one of the Debtors' founders ("Mr. [read post]
13 May 2011, 8:59 am
In connection with the proposed reinstatement, and in an attempt to remain in compliance with the change-in-control provisions of the credit agreement (described below), the Committee's plan provided that Vincent Young, one of the Debtors' founders ("Mr. [read post]
12 May 2011, 10:17 pm
This editorial appears in today's New York Times: Gutting Class Action The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 vote in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
12 May 2011, 8:35 am
For publication opinions today (3): In Commissioner of Labor on the Relation of Vincent and Antimo Scialdone v. [read post]
11 May 2011, 7:42 am
In AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 1:00 pm
ARTICLE V (1) Extradition shall not be granted if: (a) the person sought would, if proceeded against in the territory of the requested Party for the offense for which his extradition is requested, be entitled to be discharged on the grounds of a previous acquittal or conviction in the territory of the requesting or requested Party or of a third State; or (b) the prosecution for the offense for which extradition is requested has become barred by lapse of time according to the law of the… [read post]
5 May 2011, 5:23 pm
In Southland Corp., v. [read post]
3 May 2011, 6:08 am
See Jerista v. [read post]
1 May 2011, 10:34 am
”Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog calls the 5-4 decision in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm
ARTICLE V (1) Extradition shall not be granted if: (a) the person sought would, if proceeded against in the territory of the requested Party for the offense for which his extradition is requested, be entitled to be discharged on the grounds of a previous acquittal or conviction in the territory of the requesting or requested Party or of a third State; or (b) the prosecution for the offense for which extradition is requested has become barred by lapse of time according to the law of the… [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 6:22 am
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 6:15 pm
Ledbetter v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 11:46 am
” Laster v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 9:36 am
Well, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case, AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V (1) Extradition shall not be granted if: (a) the person sought would, if proceeded against in the territory of the requested Party for the offense for which his extradition is requested, be entitled to be discharged on the grounds of a previous acquittal or conviction in the territory of the requesting or requested Party or of a third State; or (b) the prosecution for the offense for which extradition is requested has become barred by lapse of time according to the law of the… [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 9:25 am
ANTHONY VINCENT OTTEN, Defendant and Appellant. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 3:25 pm
In an April 4, 2011 Order, in the case of Vincent v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 4:30 pm
ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 4:51 am
The party alleging that an individual has changed his domicile has the burden of proving such a change of the individual’s “permanent place of abode” Matter of Gigliotti v Bianco, 2011 NY Slip Op 02206, Appellate Division, Fourth Department The City of Niagara Falls School District terminated the employment of Vincent F. [read post]
