Search for: "Reading v. Attorney General"
Results 9301 - 9320
of 14,178
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2014, 4:02 pm
You may read it at the link; the objections speak for themselves. [read post]
22 May 2014, 2:11 pm
Icon Health & Fitness Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 1:34 pm
Maistros’ could there be who are attorneys. [read post]
22 May 2014, 9:00 am
That court held – in Quicken Loan v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 8:45 am
This past Tuesday, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision in Commonwealth v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 7:15 am
Given that a number of divorce attorneys (and those with no such expertise) have opined about the family law legal consequences of this tragi-comedy, I figured I might weigh in as well. [read post]
21 May 2014, 8:32 pm
Jurors complained post-verdict that plaintiff’s counsel’s slides where hardly readable and that all he did with them was to read what was on the slide. [read post]
21 May 2014, 2:44 pm
ATP Tour: The Little Case That Could On May 8, 2014 the Delaware Supreme Court upheld a “loser pays” fee-shifting bylaw for a Delaware non-stock corporation in ATP Tour, Inc. v. [read post]
21 May 2014, 12:03 pm
Under this provision, the attorney general could order production of tangible things if he “reasonably determines that an emergency situation requires” it “before an order authorizing such production can with due diligence be obtained” and that the factual predicate for such an order has been met. [read post]
21 May 2014, 10:44 am
For answers to any questions regarding this blog or with regard to accommodations for disabled employees generally, please feel free to contact an attorney in the Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Department. [read post]
21 May 2014, 4:46 am
You can read more about the facts in the case and the charges in the news stories you can find here and here. [read post]
20 May 2014, 12:16 pm
Altavion, Inc. v. [read post]
20 May 2014, 11:37 am
Which consists of a very long discussion (albeit in a footnote) of something that is entirely irrelevant to the appeal, but that Judge Wallace includes because he's clearly not happy about the fact that the California Attorney General decided not to defend Proposition 8 on appeal, so he feels like (1) saying so, and (2) suggesting that California pass legislation requiring the Attorney General to support such laws in the future.The footnote's more… [read post]
20 May 2014, 9:12 am
Pixley v. [read post]
20 May 2014, 4:00 am
In February, the state attorney general said she would not defend the ban in court. [read post]
19 May 2014, 9:01 pm
The Ruling in Judicial Watch v. [read post]
19 May 2014, 1:36 pm
Procaps S.A. v. [read post]
19 May 2014, 9:34 am
Supreme Court held in the case of Petrella v. [read post]
19 May 2014, 5:53 am
A plain reading of this statute demonstrates the intent of the legislature. [read post]
19 May 2014, 4:46 am
In Stockhouse v. [read post]
