Search for: "New Doe Child #1 v. United States" Results 141 - 160 of 1,536
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jan 2011, 11:08 am by Tana Fye
  Those states were Alaska[1], Arizona[2], Idaho[3], Michigan[4], New York[5], North Dakota[6], and Utah[7]. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 11:31 pm
United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 9:30 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Paul Rothstein, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, addressed the use of hearsay in a criminal trial in his review of Ohio v Clark,* a decision recently handed down by the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 5:26 am
After Louis Colon–Gentile was charged “in a seven-count indictment with distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography, in violation of Title 18, United States Code §§ 2252(a)(2), 2252(a)(4)(B), 2252(b)(1) and  2252(b)(2)”, he moved to suppress “physical evidence and statements he made, on the ground that they were obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 3:14 pm
You must live in the United States or the Northern Mariana Islands to get SSI. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 6:10 am by Joel R. Brandes
Such written agreement must state that it will be the responsibility of the adoptive parent(s) to inform the appropriate State or local official when they are no longer legally responsible for the child or no longer providing any support to the child” (18 NYCRR 421.24[c][5]). [read post]
23 Oct 2007, 11:01 am
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.M., Monica Runkel v. [read post]
27 Nov 2024, 12:47 pm by NARF
Smith (Federal Court Jurisdiction) United States v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 9:46 am by PaulKostro
Cooper, and more particularly, Holder, recognize that subtlety by according special respect to the liberty interests of the custodial parent to seek happiness and fulfillment because that parent’s happiness and fulfillment enure to the child’s benefit in the new family unit. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 10:10 pm
In Benjamin C., we applied two federal standards to the child's claim of pretext: (1) the purely objective probable cause/reasonable suspicion standard that was adopted in Whren, and (2) the more probing federal standard applied at the time by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. [read post]