Search for: "State v. Foster" Results 201 - 220 of 3,977
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Feb 2011, 7:20 am by Layla Kuhl
In McKimmy v Melling, the Court of Appeals held that when ruling on a change of domicile motion, a trial court should consider whether a proposed parenting time schedule provides “a realistic opportunity to preserve and foster the parental relationship” and not whether the proposed schedule would be the best plan. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 2:05 am by Aileen McColgan, Matrix Chambers.
Extradition in the public interest would, however, generally be proportionate under Article 8(2) (Norris v Government of the United States of America (No.2) [2010] 2 AC 487). [read post]
30 Mar 2021, 7:21 pm by Adeline Chong
Written by Marcus Teo (Sheridan Fellow (Incoming), National University of Singapore) Since Foster v Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470, common law courts have recognised that contracts made with the intention to commit a criminal offence in a foreign state are unenforceable, even if the contract contemplated an alternative mode or place of performance. [read post]
17 Jun 2016, 4:25 pm by Legal Talk Network
Baby Girl before both the United States Supreme Court and the South Carolina Supreme Court and in Nielson v. [read post]
4 Sep 2008, 4:00 pm
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 4:21 pm by Cal Law
Axel previously prosecuted white-collar crime cases in the Central District of California and handled United States v. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 8:43 am by Zach Zagger
United States [Cornell LII Backgrounder] that a federal sentencing law does not permit sentencing judges to impose or lengthen prison terms for the purpose of fostering the defendant's rehabilitation. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 6:33 pm by cdw
Cleve Foster and Gayland Bradford. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 4:05 am by Howard Friedman
A settlement agreement has been reached in the long-running litigation in Pedreira v. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 6:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
” The Court reasoned that a bright-line rule requiring physical presence in the state was necessary because it “encourage[d] settled expectations and . . . foster[ed] investment by businesses and individuals. [read post]