Cases

218 F.Supp.2d 42 (2002) Norman BRESETT, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CLAREMONT, Defendant No. CIV. 01-343-M. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. August 28, 2002. Eleanor H. MacLellan, Sulloway & Hollis, Concord, NH, for plaintiff. William R. Bagley, Jr., Devine Millimet & Branch, PA, Manchester, NH, for defendant. ORDER

Bresett v . Claremont CV-01-343-M 08/28/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Norman Bresett, Plaintiff v. Civil N o . 01-343-M Opinion N o . 2002 DNH 159 City of Claremont, Defendant O R D E R In February of 1999, the City of Claremont published a newspaper advertisement informing the publi

Dear Commissioner Leavitt, The Attorney General has considered your request for an opinion on the questions you submitted which ask, in effect, the following: 1) Are Indian tribal courts of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing amended certificates of birth upon receipt of a decree of adoption rendered by such a court? 2) Are such courts of competent jurisdiction fo

The Attorney General has considered your request for an opinion on the questions you submitted which ask, in effect, the following: 1) Are Indian tribal courts of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing amended certificates of birth upon receipt of a decree of adoption rendered by such a court? 2) Are such courts of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of releasing vital statistics records required by statute to be confidential ? 3) How may the State Registrar of Vital Statistics

OSCN Found Document:Question Submitted by: The Honorable Dave Rader, Oklahoma Senate, District 39 Question Submitted by: The Honorable Dave Rader, Oklahoma Senate, District 392025 OK AG 14Decided: 10/31/2025OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS Cite as: 2025 OK AG 14, __ __ ¶0 This office has received your request for an Attorney

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. BACKGROUND 370 A. Plaintiffs Motion in Limine 372 B. Has Defendant Furnished an Accounting? 373 II. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 374 A. Claims 1 and 2 375 B. Claims 3 and 4 378 III. THE NON-ACCOUNTING CLAIMS 378 A. Expendit

521 F.Supp. 1072 (1981) The UTE INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff, v. The STATE OF UTAH, defendant in intervention, Duchesne County, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, Uintah County, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, Roosevelt City, a municipal corporation, and Duchesne City, a municipal corporation, Defendants, United States of America, Amicus Curiae, Paradox Production Corporation, a Utah corporation, Amicus Curiae.