Search for: "State of Alabama v. B. T. D.; B. T. D. v. State of Alabama"
Results 161 - 180
of 244
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Nov 2012, 1:50 pm
We do have other things to do after all.Here goes:AlabamaThere aren’t any Alabama hospital strict liability cases that we’ve been able to find. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 7:44 am
Not a grant but, statistically speaking, the next best thing: the Court CVSG’d in the once-relisted Mount Holly v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 6:07 pm
But that argument doesn’t support the broad brush applied in states; in fact, it supports the exact opposite. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 1:14 pm
B, at 27a. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 9:57 pm
”89 The court confirmed this understanding of the section 4(a) bailout provision by citing to the Supreme Court’s City of Rome case, in which the Court held that the city of Rome, Georgia, “was ineligible to seek bailout because the coverage formula of § 4(b) ha[d] never been applied to it. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 6:40 am
Circuits take a different approach than the majority of circuits, but it says that this isn’t an appropriate vehicle for resolving the alleged conflict. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 4:58 am
Alabama and Jackson v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 8:08 am
§ 1125(d)(1)(B)(ii). [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 10:14 am
The University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. [read post]
25 May 2012, 12:05 am
Alabama v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 11:19 am
Reitze, Jr. and William D. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 2:47 pm
Alabama, 10-9646, and Jackson v. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 5:00 am
Accord University of South Alabama v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 6:21 am
Michael D. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 4:30 am
Sh*t happens. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 9:43 am
Rev. 939 (July 2011) Michael T. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 6:18 pm
United States, 10-9746 (ditto); and Wesevich v. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 7:45 am
Circuits take a different approach than the majority of circuits, but it says that this isn’t an appropriate vehicle for resolving the alleged conflict. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 5:29 am
(Daniels v. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 3:58 am
But because the record did not reflect the existence of any similar significant public interest that required the disclosure of Father D's name, the court held that Father D's name must be redacted from any discovery documents that were released. [read post]
