Search for: "MATTER OF C B J B"
Results 1901 - 1920
of 3,062
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2017, 8:30 am
Judge Thacker argued that reading subparagraph (B) in this fashion should render subparagraph (A) a nullity. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 7:02 am
David Boundy This is a response to Prof. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 11:19 pm
• There is no change to paragraph (b). [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 2:33 pm
Circumstances of contemporary daily interactions between men and women, warrants that the “opportunity” element of proof of adultery must be interpreted to mean more that mere “proximity,” but must instead necessarily mean “proximity plus. [read post]
4 May 2011, 1:01 pm
C. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 2:49 pm
The Second Circuit held that the trial evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that Countrywide made a false representation with contemporaneous fraudulent intent. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 8:01 am
See, e.g., 15A-145.5(c)(3). [read post]
3 Sep 2019, 10:01 am
J. [read post]
20 Dec 2020, 9:00 pm
(The fit between the UK’s ‘worker’ status and EU labour law was discussed in B v Yodel Delivery Case C‑692/19, B v Yodel Delivery (CJEU, Judgment 22 April 2020).) [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 8:01 am
See, e.g., 15A-145.5(c)(3). [read post]
27 Jun 2007, 9:41 am
Joshua C. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 8:09 am
C. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 7:06 am
Despite his misgivings about adjudicating on so incomplete a matter Munby J provides a very welcome and illuminating analysis of the fraught issue of religious belief and discrimination. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 8:01 am
“As a general matter, lawyers and science don’t mix. [read post]
1 Apr 2021, 8:33 am
Students, just like adults, hold opinions about all sorts of matters. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 9:53 am
Marsh, J. [read post]
2 May 2007, 9:54 am
Sections 221, 221-a, 221-b, 221-bb, 221-c, 221-d, 221-e,
2 221-f, 221-g, 221-h, 221-i and 223 of the judiciary law are REPEALED and
3 a new section 221 is added to read as follows:
4 § 221. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 8:40 am
Fischer and J. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 7:36 am
§ 949p-4(b)(1)-(3); see 10 U.S.C. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 7:30 am
"But, probably for good reason, Carr J did not set about summarizing that case law in the judgment.There were three issues on the claim interpretation of Integer [D]:1. [read post]
