The first question which arises in this cause, is an objection to the jurisdiction of the court below, made
by the appellees, on the ground of the want of proper parties; and that the state of Massachusetts, being now the owners of the bridge, pursuant to the terms of the charter to the defendants, no suit could be sustained which can affect their interest in it.
Not exact matches
Each of
appellees» possible theories of wealth discrimination is founded on the assumption that the quality of education varies directly with the amount of funds expended on it, and that, therefore, the difference in quality between two schools can be determined simplistically
by looking at the difference in per - pupil expenditures.
the
appellee here «was put to a Hobson's choice»: decline to testify and lose the opportunity of conveying his version of the facts to the jury, or take the stand and forego his fundamental right to be assisted
by counsel.
In addition to the regulations held unconstitutional
by the court below,
appellees originally challenged Rule 143.2 prohibiting topless waitresses, Rule 143.3 (2) requiring certain entertainers to perform on a stage at a distance away from customers, and Rule 143.5 prohibiting any entertainment that violated local ordinances.
In regards to the marriage of Roger E. Thompson (Petitioner / Appellant) and Tanya F. Thompson (Respondent /
Appellee), under Arizona Revised Statute 25 - 408, a parent granted joint custody and legal decision making or parenting time is granted the right to a minimum of 60 days of advanced notice prior to a relocation of the minor child
by the other parent «more than 100 miles within the state.»
Oral Argument presented
by Neil Popović, on behalf of
appellee Alan Wofsy.