Search for: "Metz v. State"
Results 41 - 60
of 75
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2015, 2:13 pm
Since the court did not enter any factual findings, as it does when a parent consents to the jurisdiction of the court under Section 1051(a) of the Family Court Act in Article X proceedings, no adjudication on the merits took place (Mirelle F. v Renol F., 4 Misc 3d 1011(a) [Sup Ct Queens County 2004]) and there is nothing which could affect or bind the Petitioner in the future (Metz v People, 73 Misc 2d 219 [Sup Ct Nassau County 1973]; Lockwood v Lockwood, 23 Misc… [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 11:38 am
Since the court did not enter any factual findings, as it does when a parent consents to the jurisdiction of the court under Section 1051(a) of the Family Court Act in Article X proceedings, no adjudication on the merits took place (Mirelle F. v Renol F., 4 Misc 3d 1011(a) [Sup Ct Queens County 2004]) and there is nothing which could affect or bind the Petitioner in the future (Metz v People, 73 Misc 2d 219 [Sup Ct Nassau County 1973]; Lockwood v Lockwood, 23 Misc… [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 8:59 am
Smotherman, Reading Between the Wines: Granholm v. [read post]
23 May 2012, 2:38 pm
Our most recent post on the topic was Metz v. [read post]
1 Nov 2019, 12:01 pm
Loewy’s article United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 7:00 am
Article V states that the Treaty of Passau of 1552 and the Religious Peace of Augsburg (Augsburger Religionsfriede) of 1555 must be observed. [read post]
8 May 2019, 10:30 am
Murphy’s article Abandon Chevron and Modernize Stare Decisis for the Administrative State is cited in the following article: Heather Elliott, Gorsuch v. the Administrative State, 70 ALA. [read post]
26 Jan 2017, 1:51 pm
Supreme Court in Glossip v. [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 12:25 pm
Cir. 1992); NLRB v. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 9:04 am
Valid factual findings necessarily underlie every obviousness rejection under Graham, but they are insufficient to make the case where the references do not make clear why the combination would have been motivated and no other supporting reasoning is supplied.Ex parte Metz Appeal 2014-002549; Appl. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 8:26 am
Valid factual findings necessarily underlie every obviousness rejection under Graham, but they are insufficient to make the case where the references do not make clear why the combination would have been motivated and no other supporting reasoning is supplied.Ex parte Metz Appeal 2014-002549; Appl. [read post]
31 Oct 2007, 6:03 am
Case Name: Metz, Horton and Basile v. [read post]
16 May 2012, 12:17 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 9:18 am
Beyer’s article Estate Planning Ramifications of Obergefell v. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 2:01 pm
Beyer is cited in the following case: Weed v. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 12:42 pm
Acevedo v. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 10:00 am
Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 10:36 am
'"] From Magistrate Judge Reid Neureiter's Report and Recommendation yesterday in Huff v. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 10:22 am
Loewy’s article Why Roe v. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 12:18 pm
Gonzalez is cited in the following case: Kim Cramton v. [read post]
