Search for: "Adoption of L. J." Results 1921 - 1940 of 2,486
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Feb 2011, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
Even when modernizing the law of comment (WIC Radio & Mair v Simpson [2008] 2 SCR 420) and creating a new “public interest responsible communication” defence (Grant v Torstar Corp [2009] SCC 61) the court failed to take the step of importing Charter analysis or standards into the common law[12] As to the English solution of Reynolds, Eady J comments sadly that the Reynolds defence “seems hardly ever to be used in litigation. [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 1:59 am
After the recent E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to Bravo raw milk gouda cheese that sickened 38 (one with HUS), the New York Times is quickly becoming the go to newspaper for cheese lovers.Bill Neuman wrote yet another article on cheese - "Raw Milk Cheesemakers Fret Over Possible New Rules" - after Food Safety News reported it and in follow-up to my five part series on raw milk and the "60 day rule" - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5, and the continuing outbreaks,… [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 7:05 pm by Badrinath Srinivasan
We used to do a fortnightly post giving links and the abstracts to the articles published in the Social Science Research Network that are related to arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 6:05 pm by Joseph C. McDaniel
However, as noted, schedule J does not disclose the payments totaling $2,046 on the debtors' three vehicles and $1,000 for the support of the niece. [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 11:08 am by Tana Fye
  Those states were Oklahoma in its code and in the case of In the Matter of Baby Boy L.[28] and South Dakota in the case of Matter of Adoption of Baade[29]. [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 11:08 am by Tana Fye
  Those states were Oklahoma in its code and in the case of In the Matter of Baby Boy L.[28] and South Dakota in the case of Matter of Adoption of Baade[29]. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 11:08 am by Tana Fye
[J.] be uprooted from a non-Indian environment and placed in an Indian one.[42]  The Oklahoma Supreme Court concluded that ICWA only applies when Indian children are removed from existing Indian family environments.[43]       South Dakota adopted the existing Indian family exception in 1987 in Claymore v. [read post]