Search for: "PARTY X v. PARTY Y"
Results 181 - 200
of 460
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Dec 2007, 4:59 am
After all, the government's choice of whether to take Parcel X or to take Parcel Y for a new public school is recognized as an exercise of the "power" of eminent domain; and if the government chooses to take Parcel X, it is, by necessity, refraining from taking Parcel Y. [read post]
6 Dec 2019, 1:41 pm
There are tons of cases in which I think the correct legal result is X even though my ideological desire is Y. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 1:47 am
The Morgan Court thus indicated that, even though an authorized buyer of product X was free of the patent owner’s patent on that product, the buyer could not, by virtue of his purchase, prevent the patent owner from enforcing his patent as to product Y, even though Y was specifically designed to be used with X and, at a minimum, made X more useful than it otherwise would be and, indeed, was essential to X’s utility. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 5:07 am
Is the fact that Person X contributed $100 to Candidate Y likely to reveal interests to whom Candidate Y will be beholden? [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 7:31 pm
A New York Probate Lawyer said this case is a contested probate proceeding wherein the petitioner, A, the decedent’s second wife, moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment admitting the proffered instrument dated 21 December 2005 to probate and dismissing the objections filed by three of the four of decedent's children from his first marriage, X, Y and Z. [read post]
1 Dec 2016, 5:35 am
If a law makes something illegal in situation X, but not in situation Y, is it always/sometimes/never necessary for the police to have probable cause to believe that X, and not Y, is the case? [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 12:32 am
Wang dated 17 March 2016D48 Supplemental declaration of Y. [read post]
3 Nov 2017, 4:00 am
As illustrated most recently in the Access Copyright v. [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 5:00 am
However, the license was subject to two exceptions, namely to: use the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely x,y co-ordinates) for a purpose other than personal, non-commercial use or commercial or non-commercial use within your organisation; or sub-license, distribute, sell or make available the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely x,y co-ordinates) to third parties. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 8:09 pm
We accept that it's okay for NY to apply different tax rates to X and Y if X earns $100,000 in 2010 while Y earns $100,000 in 2011 because NY can change its tax rates, even though it's not okay for NY to tax X and Y at different rates if they both earn $100,000 in 2010, even though they live in different towns. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 7:43 am
"offers to settle all claims by plaintiff X against defendant Y").- Offers of settlement can be withdrawn during the 14 day statutory period by service of a written withdrawal of offer. [read post]
9 Jan 2021, 11:30 am
How can you defend “x”? [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V A. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 12:47 pm
” United States v. [read post]
25 May 2017, 9:06 am
Agency v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 5:16 pm
For the way the project managers dealt with the unexpected and the uncertain was by making sure the experts spoke to one another - on X date regarding Y process. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 2:33 pm
this is referred to as a negative by HHJ Matthews, ie “Suppose that Y (without X’s positive words or acts) comes to believe that X will in the future give him some right or interest, and X either realises that this is Y’s belief and does nothing to disabuse him, or (even if he does not realise this) nonetheless positively encourages Y to act in ways only consistent with Y’s having such a belief (so that,… [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 6:01 am
Courts and regulators provided some clarification (in Microsoft v. [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 11:02 am
But consistent with the existent regime for other crimes, the law creates a standard of strict liability: legal persons are liable for the aforementioned crimes committed, directly or indirectly, with their intervention or in their name, interest or benefit (Article 2).This approach is consistent with the standard of corporate liability already in force for other crimes, such as custom’s crimes, tax crimes, money laundering, insider trading, and securities fraud, among others.The… [read post]
