Search for: "State v. Long."
Results 9261 - 9280
of 51,515
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Dec 2020, 2:19 pm
Supreme Court decision holding that plaintiffs suing a foreign government under the statutory exception for state-sponsored terrorism can seek punitive damages for terrorism. [read post]
30 Dec 2020, 1:47 pm
Starr v. [read post]
30 Dec 2020, 12:27 pm
., LLC v. [read post]
30 Dec 2020, 9:18 am
The Second Circuit quotes from a recent Supreme Court ruling stating that the Constitution cannot be "cut . . . [read post]
30 Dec 2020, 5:01 am
Court of Federal Claims case, Brown v. [read post]
29 Dec 2020, 9:01 pm
In Welsh v. [read post]
29 Dec 2020, 4:05 pm
Helpfully in November 2020 Saini J in Qatar Airways Group v Middle East News at paragraphs 263-306 of his judgment undertook a timely, but long overdue, examination of the rule in Diamond v Sutton. [read post]
29 Dec 2020, 2:32 pm
How Long Does Spousal Support Continue? [read post]
29 Dec 2020, 2:14 pm
InWatson v. [read post]
29 Dec 2020, 10:50 am
Times v. [read post]
29 Dec 2020, 8:00 am
An investment contract was defined by the Supreme Court in SEC v. [read post]
29 Dec 2020, 5:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2020, 3:00 am
In a recently decided alimony case captioned Harkness v. [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 9:01 pm
See Menkowitz v. [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 12:20 pm
In Tanzin v. [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 10:19 am
Commenting on the subsequent conviction of the defendant, a DOJ official noted stated that the owner of the chain of hospice agencies had “funded his lavish lifestyle by exploiting patients with long-term, incurable diseases by enrolling them in expensive but unnecessary hospice services. [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 6:00 am
It did not take long for Westrick to get uncomfortable at work, as SCBA knew Westrick was knowledgeable about the degradation of their armor, and they knew where Westrick stood on the issue. [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 5:34 am
Tuel v. [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 4:36 am
Long-Term Residents[12] For such migrants, only scenario (b) is relevant. [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
Supreme Court found that switching the Members from the 62/5 plan to the 57/5 plan violated Article V, §7 of the New York State Constitution. [read post]
