Search for: "STATE IN THE INTEREST OF D.J." Results 41 - 60 of 113
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jun 2019, 11:16 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
In the end, the entire case got dismissed because Jefferson was unable to pay the $300.00.The Court of Appeals (Calabresi, Droney and Underhill [D.J.]) reinstates the case and vacates the sanction to boot. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 6:40 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
This is an interesting argument, but the Court of Appeals (Carney, Livingston and Berman [D.J.]) rejects it. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 2:21 pm by Jon Sands
" See United States v. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 9:18 am
”It will be interesting to see how the ERC program plays out, she adds. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 11:03 am by Eugene Volokh
And presumably the state of Florida should have a broader interest in following the law, including federal law when it trumps state law (see the U.S. [read post]
10 Mar 2019, 6:42 pm by Steve Kalar
  The Ninth holds the D.J. was prescient: we do have a privacy interest in our cell site location data. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 9:54 am
Bourque On September 9, 2011, in a matter of first impression for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United State District Court (Zobel, D.J.) held that a mandatory arbitration clause, agreed to by a decedent, is not binding on the estate in connection with its claim for wrongful death. [read post]
24 Mar 2019, 2:29 pm by Steve Kalar
Even more interesting, however, is Judge Berzon’s compelling call for en banc review of United States v. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 7:07 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Accordingly, DAI has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing the elements of its purported associational standing.Now, the United States did intervene in this case. [read post]
17 Mar 2022, 5:24 am by Gregory Forman
I doubt that is what the state legislature intended when it redrafted the grandparent visitation statute. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 7:12 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The state does not own these facilities, and although the state does regulate their liquor licenses, the Supreme Court held many years ago that this connection to the state is not enough to create "state action. [read post]