Search for: "Abraham v. State" Results 121 - 140 of 611
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 May 2015, 2:59 am by Scott Bomboy
On May 28, 1861, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney directly challenged President Abraham Lincoln’s wartime suspension of the great writ of habeas corpus, in a national constitutional showdown. [read post]
16 Jul 2017, 12:00 am by Smita Ghosh
Lincoln’s Trident: The West Gulf Blockading Squadron during the Civil War; William Davenport Mercer’s Diminishing the Bill of Rights: Barron v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 4:19 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The “agreement” at the core of an account stated is independent of the underlying obligation between the parties (see Citibank [South Dakota], N.A. v Abraham, 138 AD3d at 1056; Citibank [S.D.] [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 9:55 am by John Elwood
  The state asks (1) whether the Michigan courts’ decision not to extend United States v. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 9:56 am by Jason Shinn
Abraham Lincoln once noted that if he had six hours to chop down a tree, he would spend the first four sharpening the axe. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 3:57 am by Amy Howe
” At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History Blog, Akhil Amar and Doug Kendall discuss – among other things – President Abraham Lincoln’s “life in Illinois and the constitutional vision he developed as a lawyer in the Territories” and “Justice Anthony Kennedy’s upbringing in Californiaand its influence on what he may be thinking in the pending” challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 6:32 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“An account stated is an agreement between parties, based upon their prior transactions, with respect to the correctness of the account items and the specific balance due” (Citibank [South Dakota], N.A. v Abraham, 138 AD3d 1053, 1056; see Michael B. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 4:22 am
 As his recent Legal 500 entry states, Tom is as "smooth as silk, and no doubt he will be one soon. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 1:25 pm
" After a hearing, the State Board revoked the doctor's license.While the doctor raised an array of technical objections by way of an Article 78 proceeding, the Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately concluded that the penalty did not "shock one's sense of fairness" and left the revocation undisturbed.Frankly, it would have been shocking if the AD3 had concluded otherwise.For a copy of Appellate… [read post]