§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE W.B.

Respondent's Request for Judicial Notice

25 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Cruz

    13 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 287 times
    Holding that burglary of an inhabited vessel constituted burglary of "an inhabited dwelling house"

  2. Johnson v. American Standard, Inc.

    43 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 195 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding defense applicable to both types of claims

  3. Gibbons v. Ogden

    22 U.S. 1 (1824)   Cited 1,757 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the commerce power extends "to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the States generally"

  4. S.H. G. H. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare

    No. 1565 C.D. 2011 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jan. 25, 2013)

    No. 1565 C.D. 2011 01-25-2013 In Re: S.H. G. H., Petitioner v. Department of Public Welfare, Respondent DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge ORDER NOW, January 25, 2013, having considered petitioner's application for reargument and intervener's answer, reconsideration is granted. Our opinion and order filed November 15, 2012 are hereby withdrawn. If additional briefs are required, the Court will establish a briefing schedule. BY THE COURT: /s/_________ DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge

  5. Esque Real Es. Ho., Inc. v. C.H. Cons., LTD

    954 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2007)

    No. SC06-2209. March 27, 2007. Lower Tribunal No. 4D05-3229. This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on jurisdictional briefs and portions of the record deemed necessary to reflect jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b), Florida Constitution, and the Court having determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction, it is ordered that the petition for review is denied. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.330(d). LEWIS, C.J., and PARIENTE

  6. Lafayette Distributors, Inc. v. United States

    397 F. Supp. 719 (W.D. La. 1975)   Cited 6 times
    In Lafayette Distributors, Inc. v. United States, 397 F. Supp. 719 (W.D.La. 1975) the court looked past the existence of a voting trust and, applying a beneficial ownership test, held that since the income of the corporation would be taxed to the shareholder rather than the trustee of the voting trust, the voting trust was not a shareholder of the corporation, despite its owning legal title to the stock.

  7. Stafford v. Geary

    213 Cal. 650 (Cal. 1931)   Cited 1 times

    Docket No. S.F. 14279. September 22, 1931. MOTION for diminution of record on appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. James G. Conlan, Judge. Motion granted. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Rudolph J. Scholz and Joe Mannix for Appellant. Gus C. Ringole for Respondents. WASTE, C.J. Motion for diminution of record. In the year 1926 the defendant Geary brought an action in claim and delivery against the plaintiff and appellant Stafford

  8. Bank of the United States v. Dunn

    31 U.S. 51 (1832)   Cited 22 times
    In Bank of the United States v. Dunn, 6 Pet. 51, it was held that an agreement by the president and cashier that the endorser on a note shall not be liable on his endorsement, does not bind the bank; that it is not the duty of the cashier and president to make such contracts, nor have they the power to bind the bank, except in the discharge of their ordinary duties.

  9. State of Georgia v. Brailsford

    3 U.S. 1 (1794)   Cited 16 times

    FEBRUARY TERM, 1794. For the plaintiff, Ingersoll and Dallas, proposed two objects for enquiry: — 1. Was the debt due from Spalding, at any time the property of the State? — 2. Has the title of the State ceased, or been removed, and the right of action re-vested in the defendants? 1. On the first point, they contended, that Georgia as a sovereign State, had power to transfer the debt in question from the original creditor, an alien enemy, to herself, notwithstanding some of the debtors were citizens

  10. Rhinelander v. In. Co. of Pennsylvania

    8 U.S. 29 (1807)

    FEBRUARY TERM, 1807. Hopkinson, for the plaintiff, contended, 1. That there had been a total loss of the property insured, occasioned by a peril within the terms of the policy. 2. That the abandonment was made in due time. Whenever a vessel is captured by a belligerent as prize, whether the belligerent be a friend or an enemy, the loss is total, so long as the detention exists; and vests a complete right of abandonment. It is not the state of the information received, but the actual state of the

  11. Section 1901 - Congressional findings

    25 U.S.C. § 1901   Cited 4,754 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding that “an alarmingly high percentage of [Indian] children are placed in non-Indian . . . adoptive homes”

  12. Section 1912 - Pending court proceedings

    25 U.S.C. § 1912   Cited 3,114 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting foster care placement unless a State presents evidence from "qualified expert witnesses ... that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child"

  13. Section 1911 - Indian tribe jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings

    25 U.S.C. § 1911   Cited 1,115 times
    Granting tribal courts only concurrent jurisdiction where the Indian child is "not domiciled or residing within the reservation"

  14. Section 1915 - Placement of Indian children

    25 U.S.C. § 1915   Cited 422 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Granting adoptive placement preference to "a member of the [Indian] child's extended family"

  15. Section 1921 - Higher State or Federal standard applicable to protect rights of parent or Indian custodian of Indian child

    25 U.S.C. § 1921   Cited 180 times
    Declaring that when ICWA applies, it will yield to state laws that provide “a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian of an Indian child”

  16. Section 1913 - Parental rights; voluntary termination

    25 U.S.C. § 1913   Cited 151 times
    Allowing parent in ICWA case to withdraw adoption consent prior to entry of final adoption decree

  17. Section 13 - Expenditure of appropriations by Bureau

    25 U.S.C. § 13   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the Secretary to "direct, supervise, and expend" funds for a range of purposes including health and education

  18. Section 11 - Foreign government defined

    18 U.S.C. § 11   Cited 60 times

    The term "foreign government", as used in this title except in sections 112, 878, 970, 1116, and 1201, includes any government, faction, or body of insurgents within a country with which the United States is at peace, irrespective of recognition by the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 11 June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 686; Pub. L. 94-467, §11, Oct. 8, 1976, 90 Stat. 2001. HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§98, 288, 349; section 235 of title 22 U.S.C., 1940 ed., Foreign

  19. Section 1952 - Rules and regulations

    25 U.S.C. § 1952   Cited 38 times
    Authorizing Secretary of Interior to "promulgate such rules and regulations ... necessary" to implement ICWA

  20. Section 1920 - Improper removal of child from custody; declination of jurisdiction; forthwith return of child: danger exception

    25 U.S.C. § 1920   Cited 24 times

    Where any petitioner in an Indian child custody proceeding before a State court has improperly removed the child from custody of the parent or Indian custodian or has improperly retained custody after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of custody, the court shall decline jurisdiction over such petition and shall forthwith return the child to his parent or Indian custodian unless returning the child to his parent or custodian would subject the child to a substantial and immediate danger or