Search for: "Harris v. Cox et al"
Results 1 - 14
of 14
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Mar 2008, 11:28 am
Johnson et., al., v. [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 5:00 am
For those of you who haven't been following the story, here's a brief recap, shamelessly borrowing from William's prior posts: Jones, et al., were investors in mutual funds managed by Harris Associates, an investment adviser. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 2:00 am
Fourth Circuit Foster et. al. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2009, 9:07 pm
Today was the deadline for all amici supporting Harris Associates to file their briefs in the Supreme Court case of Jones v. [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 4:42 am
Facts: This case (Fleck et al v. [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:02 pm
PIONEER MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et. al, The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act affords certain protections to elders and dependent adults. [read post]
12 Sep 2019, 1:02 pm
§ 6021 et seq. [read post]
15 Sep 2007, 7:49 pm
., Furby et al., 1989; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1998; Polizzi, MacKenzie, & Hickman, 1999). [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in Folkens v Wyland. [read post]
18 Apr 2008, 2:00 am
Protecting computer programs under the Copyright Act: Dais Studios v Bullet Creative: (IP Down Under), Assessing copyright risk in new classroom technologies: (IP Down Under), Cadbury loses battle over exclusive use of colour purple for chocolate wrapping in its case against Darrell Lea: (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog), (IP Down Under), (IPKat), (IPwar’s), Employee or independent contractor? [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 6:05 am
Niven v. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 9:05 pm
[Editor’s Note: This post is based on a comment letter submitted to the U.S. [read post]
13 Jan 2008, 1:23 pm
In a longitudinal study that followed 4,724 known sex offenders over a period of 15 years, 24% were charged with, or convicted of, a new sexual offense (Harris & Hanson, 2004). [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 2:40 pm
Hence Illinois unquestionably had jurisdiction over [petitioner]'s petition.[22] Furthermore, the court can still rule on grounds for dissolution of marriage even if the petitioner has not satisfied the 90-day residency requirement.[23] In Hermann v Hermann, 219 Ill [read post]
