Search for: "Palmer v. District Court" Results 161 - 180 of 304
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Apr 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
June 30, 2011) (applying TwIqbal and finding fraudulent joinder where “there are no factual allegations capable of supporting a claim”); Palmer v. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 3:28 am
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma:  U.S. v. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 7:07 pm by Cicely Wilson
The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 2:02 pm
The California Supreme Court's landmark case on DUI checkpoints is Ingersoll v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 5:10 am
The district court accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation (PSI).Matter v. [read post]
11 Oct 2008, 8:13 pm
  Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Tinker v. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 5:00 am
On May 15, 2006, the United States Supreme Court decided the Sereboff v. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 7:20 am
Lewis-Palmer School District (09-257) was whether such speech by students if private speech, or government-sponsored remarks. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 3:42 pm by Kraft Palmer Davies, PLLC
Leighton, Foss Maritime Company was ordered to pay for a spinal cord stimulator for an injured tug worker represented by Kraft Palmer Davies, PLLC. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 3:53 pm by Vanessa O'Connell
All are now plaintiffs in suits that were filed in the wake of the June 2008 District of Columbia v. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 5:25 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Jean-Pierre, a/k/a “Marcelo Dominguez de Guerra”Case number: 12-cv-08886 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York)Case filed: December 6, 2012Qualifying Judgment/Order: April 16, 2015 5/29/2015 8/27/2015 2015-51 SEC v. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 2:17 pm by @travelblawg
” As such, the doctor’s testimony about the likelihood of the laser to reach the aircraft was irrelevant, and properly excluded by the district court. [read post]