Search for: "State v. Losee"
Results 1401 - 1420
of 13,167
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2010, 10:27 pm
Inability to demonstrate the possession of a required license permits the summary termination of an incumbentMatter of Cravatta v New York State Dept. of Transp., 23 Misc 3d 1137(A)In this case the court considered the application of the so-called "Felix" procedure [Felix v New York City Dep't of Citywide Administrative Services, 3 NY3d 498] in a situation where the incumbent loses or fails to renew a license required to perform the duties of the… [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 4:48 am
The fear of losing child residence arrangement or contact as a result of these accusations is frequently seen. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 11:14 am
The Court is now actively enforcing the Tenth Amendment to protect states from federal spending legislation. [read post]
12 Mar 2022, 5:51 am
Last year, in Berisha v. [read post]
3 Sep 2016, 9:08 am
Wildhirt v. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 4:00 pm
In Mann v. [read post]
13 Oct 2007, 10:38 am
Thomas (Renamed Capital v. [read post]
8 Dec 2006, 1:59 pm
Caldwell Tanks, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 3:15 am
Love him or hate him, win or lose, something tells me that we will always think of him when we talk about smart phones. [read post]
2 Oct 2006, 9:31 am
The defense argued that Lockett v. [read post]
20 Apr 2007, 2:32 pm
L&Q -v- Ansell appears to state that, once the arrears and costs set out in the Possession Order have been paid, the occupier ceases to be a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in the sense of Burrows because their occupation is no longer subject to s.85 Housing Act 1985 - either in terms of execution of the order or possible application for variation of the order. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 6:20 am
Here are the materials in Jackson v. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 4:11 am
The recent case of Vanderbloom v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 6:27 am
Frensel Gaitan) and the Florida Supreme Court (State v. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 11:07 am
Michael Mabry stated the following in his declaration: “We havenever been contacted by Aurora nor [sic] any of its agents in person, by telephone or byfirst class mail to explore options for us to avoid foreclosure as required in CC § 2923.5. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 6:30 am
This collection shows how important it is, despite the constant temptation to compression, not to lose sight of the contexts and nuances which qualify and illuminate so many leading authorities.TOC after the jump. 1 R v Pease (1832) MARK WILDE AND CHARLOTTE SMITH2 Burón v Denman (1848) CHARLES MITCHELL AND LESLIE TURANO3 George v Skivington (1869) DAVID IBBETSON4 Daniel v Metropolitan Railway Company (1871) MICHAEL LOBBAN5 Woodley v… [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 6:57 am
In United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2007, 3:22 pm
State v. [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 8:48 am
On December 1, 2015 the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of State of Ohio v. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 12:27 pm
In State v. [read post]
