Search for: "COMMERCIAL CREDIT CO. v. STATE ex rel."
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Dec 2015, 11:36 am
Co., 352 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.1984); Retail Credit Co. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
Would that be reviewable by a court, given that it involves a question of the validity to state law? [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 11:57 am
Morgan Keegan & Co., 2014 WL 1375038 (W.D. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 6:04 pm
§ 3585(b) to only provide pretrial credit for time that is not credited against another sentence. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 4:30 am
” (Only one court, West Virginia, has expressly rejected the doctrine, in State ex rel. [read post]
17 Feb 2023, 9:27 am
Ct. 644 (2023). [2] United States ex rel. [read post]
6 Jun 2023, 2:09 pm
United States ex rel. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 6:09 am
Lefoldt ex rel. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 4:27 pm
(North Carolina ex rel. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 8:28 am
Unlike European countries which mostly rely on large and powerful government agencies to enforce consumer protection and civil rights laws, the U.S. has relatively small government agencies which handle relatively few cases. [read post]
18 May 2019, 9:27 am
Rather, he stated that the factors relevant to his attorney's fees were (1) the amount in controversy, (2) the complexity of the case, and (3) his knowledge and experience—three of the eight factors set out in Arthur Andersen & Co. v. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
(Pix Credit U.S. [read post]
10 May 2018, 4:12 am
He is a contributing writer at The Daily Beast, and co-host of the forthcoming podcast on drug policy Narcotica.] [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 11:29 am
Co. v. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 6:31 am
The ICPC does not apply to A[t]he sending or bringing of a child into a receiving state by his parent, step‑parent, grandparent, adult brother or sister, adult uncle or aunt, or his guardian and leaving the child with any such relative or non‑agency guardian in the receiving state@ (Social Services Law '374Ba, Article VIII). [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 10:03 am
In these joined cases, the Court took the opportunity to re-write the penalties doctrine, which had not been considered by the House of Lords or Supreme Court since the 1914 case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1914] UKHL 1. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 8:30 am
Bookstores, g., United States v. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 3:54 pm
Credit Suisse Secs. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 12:52 pm
For example, Treaster claimed below that Treaster’s conduct satisfies the “something more” exception to co-employee immunity. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 4:31 am
Individual Inventor v. [read post]
