Search for: "Pierce v. State" Results 461 - 480 of 1,538
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Mar 2015, 3:26 am by Peter Mahler
F & V Distribution Co., LLC, 98 A.D.3d 947, 951, 951 N.Y.S.2d 77, 81 (2012) (stating that “the companies failed to observe certain formalities such as keeping certain records“) (emphasis added); Hesni v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 12:58 pm
Likewise, the right of parents to control the education and upbringing of their children is fundamental under Pierce v Society of Sisters and Meyer v Nebraska, yet states have enormous latitude in requiring parents to send their kids to school, vaccinate their kids, and so forth. [read post]
10 Oct 2008, 10:05 am
State Secretariat for Economic Affairs of the Swiss Confederation (SECO) ["Nada-case"] by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and - in an added note - the case regarding Yassin Abdullah Kadi et al. v. [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 11:29 am
Drawing on the legal precedent of Korematsu v. [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 10:56 am by OxFirst
Pierce, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [read post]
29 Apr 2015, 11:37 am
  The “corporate veil” may be pierced only in circumstances when it is necessary to prevent fraud or enforce a paramount equity, i.e., when the parent uses the subsidiary as a “mere shield” to commit fraud. [read post]
30 Oct 2008, 10:03 am
The Court has already held that states have positive obligations to protect children from sexual abuse and corporal punishment from their parents (Z v United Kingdom (2002) and A v United Kingdom (1998), for example) and so the integrity of this public/private dividing line is not in issue, but whether it will be pierced from a gender perspective remains to be seen. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 5:02 pm by Russell Beck
The Supreme Judicial Court in 2008 made that quite clear (see Pierce v. [read post]