Search for: "Potts v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 87
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Aug 2014, 10:46 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
13 Sep 2014, 10:41 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 10:52 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 10:42 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
29 Nov 2013, 5:10 am
Potts complained, producing a photograph which was time- and date-stamped as evidence that he owned the copyright in the image. [read post]
13 Oct 2020, 10:59 am
At issue in Baltimore City Police Dept. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 10:03 am
Potts, Student Intern. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 8:10 am
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Deocampo v. [read post]
26 Oct 2008, 5:12 am
State, 954 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Potts v. [read post]
9 Apr 2021, 1:48 pm
Read the full Potts v. [read post]
30 Jun 2021, 7:14 pm
Third, citing Miami Herald v. [read post]
26 Jan 2022, 11:58 am
Julie Bracker, an attorney at False Claims Act Counsel who worked on the case, explained to WNN that “[p]rior to this opinion, the 10th Circuit’s decision in Potts v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 2:56 pm
Potts v. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 9:30 am
Potts and find that Ms. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 11:30 am
As the court in Potts v. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 11:09 am
In Potts v. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 8:53 am
Potts, Utrecht & Young, LLCWestlake:Tracey L. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 12:22 pm
State v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 8:13 am
Potts v. [read post]
19 Sep 2021, 9:37 am
The Florida Appellate Brief Some of the state’s concessions: the state conclusorily disagrees with the district court’s claim that the law applies to entities that don’t resemble social media, but didn’t push the issue. [read post]
