Search for: "Harris v. Fischer" Results 1 - 20 of 42
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Oct 2011, 10:03 am by Staci Zaretsky
Johnson: Complaint [Harris County District Court] Fischer v. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 2:53 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Additionally, a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be entertained "where the conduct complained of falls well within the ambit of other traditional tort liability" (Fischer v Maloney, 43 NY2d 553, 558, 373 N.E.2d 1215, 402 N.Y.S.2d 991 [1978]). [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 3:12 am by Amy Howe
In the Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer previews the December argument in Harris v. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 3:58 am by Amy Howe
At the Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer reports on the briefs filed by Arizona’s redistricting commission in Harris v. [read post]
4 Dec 2015, 3:34 am by Amy Howe
Briefly: In the Yuma Sun, Howard Fischer previews next week’s oral arguments in Harris v. [read post]
16 Sep 2011, 5:42 pm by Brian Shiffrin
In Harris v Fischer (I2d Cir 9/9/110 (see) the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed a District Court (Telesca,J.) holding that the petitioner had procedurally defaulted his claim because he insufficiently alerted the Court of Appeals to the claim in his letter application. [read post]
10 May 2012, 3:23 am by Russ Bensing
Fischer that only the PRC portion of the sentence was void. [read post]
16 Sep 2011, 5:42 pm by Brian Shiffrin
In Harris v Fischer (I2d Cir 9/9/110 (see) the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed a District Court (Telesca,J.) holding that the petitioner had procedurally defaulted his claim because he insufficiently alerted the Court of Appeals to the claim in his letter application. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 8:10 am by Gritsforbreakfast
Anyway, here are what I consider Perry's worst criminal-justice related vetoes:Maximizing police arrest powersPhoto via The EconomistSB 730 (2001): After the US Supreme Court ruled in Atwater v. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 2:54 am by Peter Mahler
Tropeano v Dorman, 441 F3d 69, 77-78 [1st Cir 2006] ["Business activities which may continue indefinitely are not 'particular' in nature and do not constitute particular undertakings"]; Scholastic Inc. v Harris, 259 F3d at 86; Fischer v Fischer, 197 SW3d 98, 104 [Ky 2006], quoting Girard Bank v Haley, 460 Pa 237, 244, 332 A2d 443, 447 [1975]; Miami Subs Corp. v Murray Family Trust, 142 NH 501, 509, 703 A2d 1366, 1371 [1997];… [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 2:28 pm by Andrew Hamm
Howard Fischer of Havasu News reviews Harris v. [read post]