Search for: "State v. L. B. T."
Results 1821 - 1840
of 3,630
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Dec 2010, 2:17 am
Today’s decision doesn’t address that; it leaves the question of how broadly to cast access to abortion to the state itself. [read post]
24 Apr 2016, 7:00 am
CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); see also Mayo Collaborative Services v. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 8:38 pm
Dep’t of Children & Fams., 935 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); M.L. v. [read post]
30 Nov 2020, 9:29 am
[B.] [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:01 am
Hurley Int'l LLC v. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 2:12 pm
As Wikipedia explains, when a plaintiff (the person who files a civil suit) initiates a lawsuit, the defendant, the person who is being sued, can file a motion to dismiss the suit under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 5:32 pm
See Gantler v. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 4:19 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 10:31 am
United States Envt’l Protection Agency, 4 F.Supp.2d 435 (M.D.N.C. 1998), vacated by, 313 F.3d 852 (4th Cir. 2002) Tocolytics – Medical Malpractice Hurd v. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 1:27 pm
Times Co., 206 F.3d 161, 171 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Bourne v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 8:57 am
United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 11:19 am
Dep’t of Transp. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 4:19 pm
L. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 1:48 pm
Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. [read post]
13 Dec 2022, 4:00 am
I don't know whether I rose to the challenge, but I did write an exam. [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 4:48 am
l-2 [NYSCEF Doc No. 152]). [read post]
3 May 2018, 3:00 am
At the outset we emphasize that "[t]he Legislature enacted FOIL to provide the public with a means of access to governmental records in order to encourage public awareness and understanding of and participation in government and to discourage official secrecy" (Matter of Alderson v New York State Coll. of Agric. [read post]
24 Dec 2022, 8:10 am
Additionally, the Family Court properly included the children as protected persons on the order of protection, as the evidence demonstrated that doing so was “necessary to further the purposes of protection” (Family Ct Act § 842[l]; see Matter of Lengiewicz v. [read post]
30 Dec 2010, 5:10 am
Gimenez Corte, Lex mercatoria, independent guarantees and non-state enforcement L. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 4:04 pm
Jefferson L. [read post]
