Search for: "BARTON v. DISTRICT COURT"
Results 101 - 120
of 149
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Mar 2011, 1:24 pm
March 4, 2011).With respect to Barton's facial challenge, the Third Circuit concluded that it was bound by the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 3:17 pm
Under a court order in the seminal case of Washington Toxics Coalition v. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 2:33 pm
And the state Supreme Court noted in Buzz Barton & Associates, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 6:06 pm
District Court.Financial Elder Abuse: CALIFORNIA APPEALS COURT FINDS DISABLED WOMAN'S FAMILY VIOLATED TRUST, McQueen v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 10:38 am
Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 6:30 am
In Barton v. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 5:43 am
NEW YORK COUNTYCivil Practice Refusal to Authorize Co-op Conversion Starts Statute of Limitations Clock Barton v. 270 St. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 1:22 pm
Reversing the district court, the Third Circuit admonished:Federal courts may not engage in judicial activism. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
The court tried again in Bugosh v. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 4:22 am
The Eighth Circuit upheld the district court's decision. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 9:23 am
La Quinta Franchising, LLC, et al; In the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi; Cause No. 08-495-CIV. [read post]
21 May 2010, 7:45 am
Rogers, 262 S.W.2d 676 (1953), Barton v. [read post]
21 May 2010, 7:45 am
Rogers, 262 S.W.2d 676 (1953), Barton v. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:30 pm
In a motion filed Friday in federal court, the EPA and health department say the court should approve the agreement reached in November. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 6:25 am
Lane v. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 11:35 am
Barton, 7 F. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 9:38 am
Maryland Court of Appeals Sets Out Process Required Before Court May Compel Identification of Anonymous Internet Defendants. [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 7:36 am
Barton v. [read post]
24 Jan 2010, 5:29 pm
In Barton v. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 11:08 pm
The appeals court ruled that since the cases belonged in a state court, the district court judge did not have jurisdiction to dismiss them. [read post]
