Search for: "Bell v. Davis et al"
Results 1 - 20
of 31
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2022, 9:03 pm
FORD, JJ. 2021-01852 (Index No. 613899/19) [*1]In the Matter of Matthew Gabriel, appellant, vCity of Long Beach, et al., respondents. [read post]
1 Jul 2022, 9:03 pm
FORD, JJ. 2021-01852 (Index No. 613899/19) [*1]In the Matter of Matthew Gabriel, appellant, vCity of Long Beach, et al., respondents. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 5:45 am
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., et al., No. 19-50686 (5th Cir., March 27, 2020), Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (“CWA”) entered into a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (“the Company”). [read post]
2 Apr 2020, 7:58 am
Bell, et. al., Environmental Law Handbook (2019). [read post]
29 Jul 2018, 4:50 pm
Last Week in the Courts The trial in the case of Piepenbrock v London School of Economics was heard by Nicola Davies J on 23, 24 and 27 July 2018. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 12:37 pm
Cash-Davis, et al. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 12:37 pm
Cash-Davis, et al. v. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 7:22 pm
References Bell BP, Goldoft M, Griffin PM, Davis MA, Gordon DC, Tarr PI, Bartleson CA, Lewis JH, Barrett TJ, Wells JG, et al., (1994). [read post]
20 Sep 2014, 11:07 am
Owens-Illinois, Inc., et al., No. 8704-1464 (Philadelphia Cty. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) before adopting an ordinance enacting a voter-sponsored initiative pursuant to Elections Code section 9214, subdivision (a)? [read post]
22 Jun 2014, 5:31 pm
Canada In the case of Equustek Solutions Inc. v Jack et al, 2014 BCSC 1063) the British Columbia Supreme Court has issued an interim third party injunction against Google, ordering it to stop indexing or referencing certain websites in its search results, not just in Canada but everywhere. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 10:15 am
V. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 4:00 am
After expressly stating the test of essentiality/non-essentiality, Justice Binnie later restated his test as a test of non- essentiality as follows: It would be unfair to allow a patent monopoly to be breached with impunity by a copycat device that simply switched bells and whistles, to escape the literal claims of the patent. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am
In December 1833, the American Monthly Review commented on a newly published book by Joseph Story. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 6:08 am
Belfor USA Group, Inc., CA No. 06-491 et al., 2009 WL 411559 *5 (E.D.La. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 8:03 am
Gore & Associates, Inc., et. al. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 12:53 pm
Bell (2006), and Schlup v. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 10:15 pm
Abercrombie & Fitch, et al, 6:10cv111 / PACid v. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 10:02 am
Dukes, et al. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 9:48 pm
References Bell BP, Goldoft M, Griffin PM, Davis MA, Gordon DC, Tarr PI, Bartleson CA, Lewis JH, Barrett TJ, Wells JG, et al., (1994). [read post]
