Search for: "In the Matter of F. F.--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 of Bell County" Results 1 - 20 of 65
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Apr 2010, 11:49 am by mjpetro
" In this case, Bell failed to pay a child-support obligation in violation of an order issued by the Circuit Court of DuPage County in 1999. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 11:40 am
Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit 1993). [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 6:20 pm
This appeal arises from a legislative invocation given by an invited, guest speaker before the opening of a Jacksonville 1 I. [read post]
26 May 2007, 3:22 pm
To make such a prediction, the district court will examine: (1) state Supreme Court decisions in related areas; (2) "decisional law" of intermediate state courts; (3) opinions of federal courts of appeals and district courts applying state law; and (4) decisions from other jurisdictions that have discussed the issues before the court. [read post]
15 Aug 2020, 4:29 am by Joel R. Brandes
In addition to providing a record explanation for deviating or not deviating from the statutory formula, a court must relate that record articulation to the factors set forth in Family Court Act ' 413(1)(f). [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 2:00 am by Anthony B. Cavender
On April 1, 2015, the Court of Appeals decided the case of Maple Drive Farms Limited Partnership, et al., v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am by Abbott & Kindermann
City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385), or is the agency’s decision subject to a threshold determination whether the modification of the project constitutes a “new project altogether,” as a matter of law (Save Our Neighborhood v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
PLIVA, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 744 (8th Cir. 2013); Bell v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 1:34 pm by Anthony B. Cavender
§ 7412(n)(1)(A)—to impose the requirements of these new rules on these utilities. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 10:06 am by Schachtman
Court of Appeals (Nov. 27, 2018).4 In a short, concise opinion, with a single dissent, the Court held that plaintiffs’ evidence (any exposure, no matter how trivial) in a mesothelioma death case was “insufficient as a matter of law to establish that respondent Ford Motor Co. [read post]