Search for: "HANKINS v. STATE"
Results 21 - 38
of 38
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2012, 2:56 pm
United States, 655 F.3d 1124, 1132-34 (9th Cir. 2011)). [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 1:53 am
Under the classic 1955 tort case Garratt v. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 12:01 am
See, e.g., Sierra Club v. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 3:08 am
Subpoena Duces Tecum Bd. of Educ. v Hankins, 294 A.D.2d 360 From time to time one reads about a case involving the serving of a subpoena duces tecum. [read post]
12 Sep 2010, 10:13 am
LEXIS 92743 (WD PA, Sept. 7, 2010), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (Hankins v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 2:26 am
"In formulating his ruling, Justice Devine noted the decision by the Appellate Division in Civil Service Employees Ass'n v New York State Public Employee Relations Board, 46 AD3d 1037, but concluded that the decision was not a controlling precedent in this case. [read post]
15 Oct 2009, 12:15 am
In Hankins v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 4:44 am
[FN1] Hankin further states that, in response to his rejection of plaintiff's case, "plaintiff's father requested the immediate return of the file. [read post]
26 May 2009, 7:22 am
For example, In United States v. [read post]
26 May 2009, 1:53 am
*Hankins v. [read post]
15 May 2009, 7:49 am
” First Amendment - Religion: In addition to her dissent in Hankins v. [read post]
18 Mar 2009, 4:15 am
"In formulating his ruling, Justice Devine noted the decision by the Appellate Division in Civil Service Employees Ass'n v New York State Public Employee Relations Board, 46 AD3d 1037, but concluded that the decision was not a controlling precedent in this case. [read post]
6 Jan 2009, 7:25 am
State v. [read post]
5 Jun 2008, 5:15 am
Subpoena Duces TecumBd. of Educ. v Hankins, App. [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 1:01 pm
Supreme Court, March 18, 2008 Washington State Grange v. [read post]
15 Oct 2007, 1:20 am
United States
Subscription Required
U.S. [read post]
3 Jul 2007, 11:16 pm
A few district courts had rejected the argument, see Hankins v. [read post]
