Search for: "State v. Stewart" Results 61 - 80 of 2,305
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jun 2023, 4:00 am by Martin Kratz
Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) ; Stewart v. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 11:00 pm
”Believing that he didn’t have a choice, and that he was without authority to reschedule or cancel the practice, the AD1 thought that Stewart thus stated a viable negligence claim and reinstated his case.Looks like Wollman Rink got an icy reception there ….# # #DECISIONStewart v Wollman Rink Operations LLC [read post]
7 Jun 2023, 8:30 am by Guest Author
”[4] Former Clinton Administration OIRA head Sally Katzen states that  “[t]he virtues of analysis—as robust as needed, commensurate with the significance of the decision being made—are, to me, self-evident: the regulator must think through, with all available data and in a systematic and disciplined way, all the intended and unintended consequences of a proposed rule. [read post]
29 May 2023, 6:20 pm by Stephen Halbrook
The Biden Administration is salivating at the prospect of United States v. [read post]
24 May 2023, 4:16 pm
Marine, 571 U.S. at 63 (noting that a forum-selection clause “represents the parties’ agreement as to the most proper forum”) (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 5:16 am by Roger Parloff
The government seeks 25 years imprisonment for the group’s founder and leader that day, Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, and sentences ranging from 10 to 21 years for the other eight. [read post]
5 May 2023, 11:38 am by Michael Oykhman
Call Now 1-866-939-5940Overview of the Offence  Production of a controlled substance is an offence under section 7 of the controlled drugs and substances act (CDSA). 7 (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall produce a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V. (2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) (a) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment… [read post]
16 Apr 2023, 12:37 am by Frank Cranmer
Revd Paul Williamson in court again In July 1997, the Revd Paul Williamson was made the subject of a Civil Proceedings Order as a vexatious litigant pursuant to s.42(1A) Senior Courts Act 1981 (Restriction of vexatious legal proceedings), primarily as a result of a series of proceedings arising from his opposition to the ordination of women: see R v HM Attorney-General ex parte Reverend Paul Stewart Williamson [1997] EWHC Admin 691. [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 4:52 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” With regard to plaintiff’s account stated claim, defendant asserted, without corroboration, that she had objected to the invoices at various points, but those “self-serving, bald allegations of oral protests were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an account stated” (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]; accord Schlenker v Cascino, 124 AD3d at 1153). [read post]
13 Apr 2023, 4:36 pm by Jacob Katz Cogan
Federal Republic of Germany Daniele Amoroso & Riccardo Pavoni, Stergiopoulos v. [read post]