Search for: "In re B. S." Results 101 - 120 of 28,448
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Aug 2007, 5:51 am
 It is simple as Do, Re, Mi; A,B,C; 1, 2, 3, Baby, you and me.After noting that CAFA is a positive development for pharmaceutical and medical device manufactures, they first looked at the impact of CAFA on federal court resources as tracked by the Federal Judicial Center. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 2:42 am
Re Jane (A Child) [2010] EWHC 3221 (Fam). [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 12:18 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
P. 60(b), a rule that reflects the courts’ inherent power to reopen their own judgments in the interest of justice. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 10:21 am
Sept. 2009) Issue: Is an oversecured creditor's right to fees under Section 506(b) limited by state law? [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 11:54 pm
See, e.g., Rubin, 769 F.2d at 614-15; In re Earl's Tire Serv., 6 B.R. 1019, 1022-23 (D.Del.1980); In re Saunders, 379 B.R. 847, 855-57 (Bankr.D.Minn.2007); In re MarketXT Holdings Corp., 347 B.R. 156, 161-62 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2006); In re Coppertone Commc'ns, Inc., 96 B.R. 233, 234-35 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1989); In re Alta Title Co., 55 B.R. 133, 136-37 (Bankr.D.Utah 1985). . . . we find the reasoning of the decisions that hold … [read post]
Cue the ending music: … as simple as do-re-mi [not in the top 20] A-B-C, 1-2-3 [#10] baby you and me girl ["babygirl" is #13] [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 1:57 pm
(L)  (B) or (D), at Father's option.etc. etc etc.You're making policy for California. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 6:11 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Accordingly, Appellants failto show error in the Examiner’s rejection.See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,1357 (Fed. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 7:21 am by Al Nye
Putnam's Sons $26.95, hard cover, 291 pages, 978-0-399-15685-4 (2010) If you're a Robert B. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 7:21 am by Al Nye
Putnam's Sons $26.95, hard cover, 291 pages, 978-0-399-15685-4 (2010) If you're a Robert B. [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
., by allowing NYCHA to pay them less than similarly situated white employees.The District Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ amended complaint under Rule 12[b][6], concluding that their claims were precluded by res judicata. [read post]