Search for: "In re INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 2"
Results 1161 - 1180
of 1,946
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2014, 4:44 am
§ 230(f)(2). [read post]
26 Apr 2014, 11:46 am
The undisputed facts and circumstances surrounding this motion are as follows: On March 2, 1979, a judgment granting Petitioner a divorce from Respondent was entered in Supreme Court, Bronx County. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 3:47 am
” On June 19, 2012, two years from the day Plaintiffs initiated the emergency Cobb County Action naming the City and Mr. [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 6:41 am
After Jane Doe No. 2 joined the initial petition, the district court (Marra, J.) found that both women qualified as “crime victims” under the CVRA. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 12:37 pm
Even the American Association of Information Radio Operators, whose petition initiated the original rulemaking to improve the TIS, supports the NAB/SBE proposal (although the AAIRO did propose a couple of additional tweaks to the NAB/SBE approach). [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 10:03 am
[1] Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration of the case. [2] In re Quality Stores, Inc., 693 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2012). [3] CSX Corp. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 6:40 am
On July 1, Crave Brothers halted production of Les Frères, Petit Frère, and Petit Frère with truffles. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 4:00 am
Defendant petitioned to compel evaluation of the applicant's two subsequent claims using the original panel QME but did not ask for a re‑evaluation of the prior cumulative injury. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 5:00 am
” 2014 WL 355995, at *2. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 4:15 am
Focus Business Bank, C-12-4958 PSG, 2013 WL 4475940, at *2 (N.D. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 2:46 pm
These include the good, the bad, the settled, and the petition denied, so they didn’t all produce opinions. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 2:29 pm
It fought that order and lost the initial round. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 7:53 am
Supp. 723,728 (D.N.J. 1998) (awarding fees for a foreign attorney who provided legal services to the petitioner in support of the Hague Convention petition). [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 8:31 pm
Treaties.2. [read post]
12 Feb 2014, 9:25 am
Against Christ Anglican Church in Mobile, Alabama (plaintiff was the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast---the suit settled in 2001 before trial, and Anglican congregation moved out; they built a brand-new church in 2005, while the historic Episcopal site became the cathedral of the Diocese that same year)2.-4. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 8:01 pm
Here is the question that was raised: Question 6f: Statistics released by USCIS and a recent study by the National Foundation for American Policy[2] have shown that the rates of requests for evidence and denials for petitions in the L-1B classification have increased dramatically and that the standard for what qualifies under the L-1B classification has been severely limited (AILA Doc. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 8:01 pm
Here is the question that was raised: Question 6f: Statistics released by USCIS and a recent study by the National Foundation for American Policy[2] have shown that the rates of requests for evidence and denials for petitions in the L-1B classification have increased dramatically and that the standard for what qualifies under the L-1B classification has been severely limited (AILA Doc. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 5:01 pm
Here is the question that was raised: Question 6f: Statistics released by USCIS and a recent study by the National Foundation for American Policy[2] have shown that the rates of requests for evidence and denials for petitions in the L-1B classification have increased dramatically and that the standard for what qualifies under the L-1B classification has been severely limited (AILA Doc. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 9:53 pm
One might call it ‘two strikes and you’re out’ as applied to civil procedure. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 4:33 pm
The Fourth Circuit’s approach here is more categorical: if a board regulating an industry is peopled by participants in that industry, and if they’re elected by other industry participants, then it’s “private” for antitrust purposes, and therefore can’t get immunity from antitrust law unless it’s (1) operating under a clearly articulated statutory standard and (2) actively supervised by the state. [read post]
