Search for: "Abbey v. State" Results 81 - 100 of 122
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 May 2014, 1:45 pm by Matthew R. Arnold, Esq.
In 2012, the state Court of Appeals entertained Constitutional challenges brought by Vermitsky in another case, Filipowski v. [read post]
4 Nov 2012, 10:31 pm by Leland E. Beck
Also worth noting, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered oral argument in the Belmont Abbey College appeal of the original “ripeness” decision for December 14, 2012. [read post]
9 May 2012, 6:59 am
Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of UNHCR in Negusie v Mukasey, an asylum case on which IntLawGrrl Jaya Ramji-Nogales has posted. [read post]
20 Mar 2010, 8:39 am by Moseley Collins
At the hearing, the court stated: Now, I don't know if anyone was negligent here or not, I'm not deciding the underlying factual case here. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 11:45 am by Matthew R. Arnold, Esq.
The United States Supreme Court actually rejected the notion that the Federal Government can require an individual to purchase health insurance in a now-famous 2012 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 9:44 am by Matthew R. Arnold, Esq.
”   Ben Affleck’s appearance at San Diego Comic Con this past weekend to promote his upcoming film, Batman v. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 5:42 am by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
State Bar of Arizona upheld a challenge by Arizona lawyers, John Bates (anyone watch Downtown Abbey?) [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 6:23 am by Matthew R. Arnold, Esq.
Arnold is admitted to practice in all state courts in North Carolina, in the United States Federal Court for the Western District of North Carolina, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, and in the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. [read post]
8 Jan 2015, 4:37 am by Matthew R. Arnold, Esq.
” An Ohio state court disagreed, ruling last year that Auto-Owners had no duty to defend G & K under the policy. [read post]