Search for: "IN THE INTEREST OF: S. R. C. J."
Results 41 - 60
of 2,818
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Mar 2015, 4:00 am
Tribe and Michael C. [read post]
12 May 2008, 8:27 am
Nadler, and Kristen R. [read post]
19 Jan 2009, 9:44 am
Bowers, James R. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 8:20 am
AUTHOR: Otieno Ombok A bill seeking to make the Conrad State 30 J-1 visa waiver program permanent and improve the pathway for physician immigration to the U.S. with changes to H-1B visas, Green card issuance and national interest waiver requirements has been introduced by a bipartisan group of four Senators: Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 6:42 am
Senator Christopher J. [read post]
13 Jan 2013, 3:30 pm
Hastie, J. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 10:03 am
Rumpf and Assemblywoman DiAnne C. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 4:00 am
Kamali’s Approach, (Tanazur Research Journal, Vol. 04: No. 02 (July - Sep. 2023)).From SmartCILP:Vincent J. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 2:56 pm
Arnold Eduardo J. [read post]
24 May 2010, 3:23 am
R. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 11:23 am
(c)? [read post]
18 Feb 2018, 3:40 pm
J and L, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon (2017) EWHC 3411 (Admin) This is a very interesting judicial review, concerning the interrelation of a council’s housing duties under Part 6 and Part 7 Housing Act 1996 and duties to children under s.17 Children Act 1989. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 3:03 am
R. [read post]
8 May 2009, 4:22 am
., No. 06 C 1025 & 07 C 1565, Slip Op. [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 2:00 am
Other peer commentaries include:Making a Fetish of “CPR” Is Not in the Patient's Best Interest - John J. [read post]
20 Jun 2019, 8:54 am
It's interesting that only Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissent. [read post]
1 Feb 2008, 5:36 am
KenagyOregon's Choice-of-Law Codification for the Contract Conflicts: An Exegesis, by Symeon C. [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 8:14 am
Sunstein, R. [read post]
2 Mar 2008, 11:00 pm
Don R. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 3:16 am
The court’s order required C&J to run a go-shop process notwithstanding the merger agreement’s no-shop provision, and it ruled that Nabors could not treat C&J’s solicitation efforts as a basis to walk away. [read post]