Search for: "In the Interest of Michael F" Results 1781 - 1800 of 2,278
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Feb 2011, 12:56 pm by Jessie Canon
Rulli and Michael Carroll, a senior attorney in the Housing Unit of Community Legal Services, wrote “Filling Gideon’s Empty Chair” for the Winter 2011 edition of The Philadelphia Lawyer. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 9:36 am
(Before turning to those questions, however, I should comment on two related administrative matters: First, even though Mike and I agreed last week that he would henceforth post on M-Tu-W, and I would post on Th-F, we agreed to switch Monday and Thursday this week. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 6:22 pm by David Lat
In order to save us from having to write these stories, please cease and desist immediately from further amendment of your grading schemes.Notwithstanding the views of the guy who posted his grades on Facebook, law school grades aren’t very interesting (except to their recipients). [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 10:44 am by admin
  Dollar amounts are not specified, but the children are seeking compensatory, pecuniary, and punitive damages along with prejudgment interest. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 2:37 pm by Darius Whelan
When combined with the 530 members of the IrishLaw Discussion list, these messages are received by 2,290 people.For the RSS feeds see the buttons on the Irish Law home page - http://www.irishlaw.org To receive an e-mail each time a new event is added to Irish Law Events, use this link to submit your e-mail address:http://url.ie/5zj To receive an e-mail each time a new post is added to the Irish Law Updates blog:http://www.feedblitz.com/f/? [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 12:27 pm by Josh Sturtevant
See Michael Allyn Pote, Mashed-Up In Between: The Delicate Balance of Artists’ Interests Lost Amidst the War on Copyright, 88 N.C.L. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 4:09 am by Alfred Brophy
 The dust jacket quotes a perceptive commentator on American legal history (wink) It has been more than half a century since John F. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 2:56 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Tellingly, however, he concluded "that reasonable minds not affected by an inherent, entrenched interest in the matter, could not reasonably differ with respect to the conclusion that the [bidder's] $74 cash offer did not represent a threat to shareholder interests sufficient in the circumstances to justify, in effect, foreclosing shareholders from electing to accept that offer. [read post]