My Opinion Game Download __TOP_

Note: Opinions are not final until any timely filed motions for rehearing are considered and disposed of by the Court. These opinions are also subject to revision before publication in the Southern Reporter, 3rd Series.

The California Appellate Courts Case Information System provides case information for California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases, including copies of opinions, both published and unpublished. Case information is updated once an hour throughout the business day.

Click on the link below to search this system for an opinion or other information in a specific case.

My Opinion Game Download

Download File 🔥 https://blltly.com/2y3Ino 🔥

As a public service, and in an effort to help credit unions, lawyers, and others that have an interest in the legal issues affecting federally insured credit unions understand the statutes and regulations administered by the NCUA better, we publish certain staff legal opinions and interpretive letters going back to 1991.

The NCUA's Office of General Counsel is available to assist the public in determining whether a particular interpretation or opinion remains correct. You can contact the Office of General Counsel at ogcmail@ncua.gov or 703.518.6540.

Thank you for contacting the Office of the Governor to register your opinion on current issues or events affecting Iowans. We are here to assist you. Please share your opinion with us using one of the following options.

This website is meant to be a resource for researching and obtaining copies of Missouri Attorney General opinions. Please note: Published opinions are not updated to reflect subsequent changes in the law, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for thorough, independent legal research.

Effective December 14, 2022, the former Court of Appeals of Maryland is renamed the Supreme Court of Maryland and the Court of Special Appeals is renamed the Appellate Court of Maryland. This is a change in name only and does not affect the precedential value of the opinions of the two courts issued before the effective date of the name change.

Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act, 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article, the opinions and orders posted on this webpage on or after July 1, 2018 are the official and authentic versions of the text of Appellate Court opinions and orders.

The Washington Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the state, provides official opinions on questions of law at the request of designated public officials on issues arising in the course of their duties.

Formal opinions issued by the Office of Attorney General since 1949 can be searched from this site using the links on the right. If you would prefer to review a pdf of all opinions by topic, click here.

The Office of the Attorney General has prepared a booklet summarizing the important concepts pertaining to incompatible offices and conflicts of interest. Wherever possible, this booklet will be sent to persons with questions in this area in lieu of an opinion. Download the booklet here: Conflicts of Interest (84k PDF).

Since 1960, the official publisher of opinions has been Banks-Baldwin. Only opinions designated by the Attorney General as "published" were printed in the Banks-Baldwin volumes. However, annotations to all opinions were given in the Kentucky Revised Statutes published by West Publishing and Michie. Therefore many opinions annotated in the KRS publications cannot be found in the official Banks-Baldwin volumes. Today the Attorney General observes no distinction between published and unpublished opinions. All formal opinions are given an OAG number and sent to Banks-Baldwin for publication. The Attorney General cites both published and unpublished opinions and does not consider unpublished opinions less authoritative than published opinions.

If you would like a copy of an opinion, the Attorney General will provide a copy of any opinion free of charge. The opinion will be mailed to you. (Please note that we have posted most OAGs from 1992 to the present and are working to add prior years). To request a copy of an opinion, please submit your request in writing to:

Before you request an opinion, please attempt to answer the question by consulting readily available legal resources. The Attorney General expects that any attorney requesting an opinion has conducted legal research and will include that research with the opinion request. Requests for new opinions must be submitted in writing to:

In certain uncommon circumstances, the Appellate or Supreme Court may recall its own mandate, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 368. Additionally, the Supreme Court possesses supervisory authority to direct the Appellate Court to withdraw an opinion where appropriate. In either situation, a Released or Final opinion might then change substantively. This occurs only rarely.

This opinion responds to questions regarding possessing both medical and recreational marijuana plants; as well as the question of possessing usable marijuana or marijuana products, concentrates, or extracts made from medical and recreation marijuana plants at the same time.

This opinion answers a question posed by Representative Kennemer concerning whether the mayor and city council members of the City of Damascus would risk personal liability for expending funds in the manner required by House Bills 3085 and 3086 (2015).

In 1985, the AG issued an opinion concerning the use of mandatory student incidental fees. Since then, the Oregon law authorizing the fees and the analysis that applies has changed. In light of those developments, the AG has been asked to revisit the 1985 opinion and advise whether its conclusions should still be relied on.

This opinion responds to a number of questions about the authority of the Legislative Assembly to require, or the Lottery Commission (Commission) to undertake, various actions to address responsible gambling and problem gambling.

This opinion addresses questions about whether a county may lawfully provide a city with county road funds for use on city roads in exchange for the city providing the county with city general funds to help pay for operation of the county correctional facility.

This opinion addresses questions regarding the interpretation of ORS 329.488, which requires the Oregon Department of Education to contract with a qualified vendor to administer a nationally normed test to all tenth-grade public school students, and of Oregon Laws 2009, chapter 824, section 1, which requires the Oregon Department of Education to grant waivers to eligible school districts to use their own qualified vendors to administer such a test.

This opinion responds to questions about whether the Driver and Motor Vehicles Services Division (DMV) may sell an exclusive license to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to provide electronic access to certain DMV records without violating Article IX, section 3, of the Oregon Constitution.

This opinion addresses the factors that the Oregon Investment Council (OIC) and the Oregon State Treasurer (Treasurer) may consider when establishing and implementing investment policies for the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund (OPERF).

This opinion responds to a question from the director of the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training regarding statutory qualifications for county sheriffs and the constitutional power of home rule counties to prescribe qualifications for county officers.

This opinion responds to questions regarding ORS 315.521, which governs tax credits for donors to venture development funds that are established for developing state university research into commercial ventures.

This opinion responds to questions posed by the health professional regulatory boards that are subject to ORS 676.175(3), which was amended by the 2005 Legislative Assembly to impose a new duty on boards to disclose investigatory information to licensees or applicants.

This opinion was issued in response to questions from Governor Kitzhaber concerning Ballot Measure 7, which was proposed through initiative petition and approved by the people at the general election held on November 7, 2000. Measure 7 amended Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution to require state and local governments to pay compensation to property owners if a government regulation reduces the value of their property.

This opinion was issued in response to a question from Chuck Smith, Director of the Debt Management Division of the Oregon State Treasury, concerning Article XI-K of the Oregon Constitution, which authorizes the state to guarantee general obligation bonds issued by school districts, education service districts and community college districts (school bonds).

This opinion responds to a question from Secretary of State Bill Bradbury concerning ORS 260.174, a statute generally regulating campaign contributions and expenditures by and to public officers and candidates for public office while the Legislative Assembly is in session.

This opinion responds to several questions about the authority of the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to reimburse legal expenses incurred by a state employee in successfully defending against a criminal prosecution.

This opinion was issued in response to questions about the possible effects of an initiative measure that will appear as Ballot Measure 93 (the Measure) on the ballot for the general election on November 7, 2000.

This opinion was issued in response to a question concerning the use of Highway Funds to implement and administer provisions of Oregon Laws 1999, chapter 1099 (House Bill 3292) that require ODOT to place a positive drug test result on an employment driving record and provide an opportunity for a hearing.

This opinion was issued in response to a question from Nancy Ellison, Deputy Commissioner of the Insurance Division of the Department of Consumer and Business Services. The requestor asked whether national banks must comply with Oregon insurance laws when offering debt cancellation programs. 2351a5e196