Search for: "King v. State"
Results 1161 - 1180
of 6,214
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2020, 3:50 am
In Banister v. [read post]
29 May 2020, 3:00 am
King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. [read post]
28 May 2020, 3:46 pm
Kings County Super. [read post]
19 May 2020, 9:30 am
(Id., at p. 265; Dolan-King v. [read post]
17 May 2020, 4:39 pm
The operator of E-Station, a supplier of EV charging equipment, is seeking $350,000 in general damages as well as aggravated and special damages, his claim filed in the federal court states. [read post]
16 May 2020, 12:21 pm
State v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 12:09 pm
See U.S. v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 3:26 pm
It’s very sort of counter-constitutional and the kind of thing that they worried about with the king back when they were in the British empire. [read post]
13 May 2020, 9:53 am
Williams' decision yesterday in NuStar Farms, LLC v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 9:00 pm
In Trump v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 5:41 am
in Postiglione v Sacks & Sacks, LLP 2020 NY Slip Op 31164(U) April 17, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 513779/2019 Judge: Edgar G. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
In some cases, however, the Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency may be a consideration.The Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency states that only the entity that created the position may abolish it [i.e., a position created by a legislative act can only be abolished by a correlative legislative act" (Matter of Torre v. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
In some cases, however, the Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency may be a consideration.The Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency states that only the entity that created the position may abolish it [i.e., a position created by a legislative act can only be abolished by a correlative legislative act" (Matter of Torre v. [read post]
8 May 2020, 3:21 pm
See Ammerman v. [read post]
8 May 2020, 5:58 am
Brownstein, Sabastian V. [read post]
8 May 2020, 5:06 am
The question in Cannisnia Plantation, LLC v. [read post]
7 May 2020, 5:29 am
The AusKat won't be restrained fromlaunching to attack that wrinkle on thesheets.....In a long-awaited judgment that will affect applications in Australia for interlocutory injunctions to restrain launch of pharmaceutical products, as well as claims for compensation following wrongful exclusion of generic or biosimilar pharmaceuticals from the market, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed a claim made by the Commonwealth government for compensation from Sanofi (Commonwealth of Australia… [read post]
7 May 2020, 3:58 am
” Yesterday’s second argument was in Barr v. [read post]
6 May 2020, 12:12 pm
In a ruling on May 4 in Doe v. [read post]
5 May 2020, 12:59 pm
King Law Ctr., Chartered, No. 6:20-cv-00760 (M.D. [read post]
