Search for: "Davis v. Clear et al" Results 1 - 20 of 153
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Mar 2024, 11:24 am by Richard Hunt
Shannon Creek  et al, Case No. 4:23-cv-00325-O (N.D. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 9:03 pm by renholding
It would provide investors with consistent, comparable, decision-useful information, and issuers with clear reporting requirements. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 3:23 pm by Richard Hunt
Circuit court decisions on ADA cases are sparse when compared to the number of suits filed, and cases involving self-service kiosks are rare, so it isn’t surprising the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Davis et al v. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 5:57 am by lawbod
  1981 – Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom In 1967, homosexuality was in part decriminalised  in England and Wales.[2] In 1980, it would be decriminalised under the same conditions in Scotland, and in 1982, in Northern Ireland as well. [read post]
27 Aug 2023, 3:56 pm by Andrew Warren
”[10] The precise threshold for “excluding the possibility” is unclear, but some courts have said it does not require “definitive” exclusion, and that the defendant’s theory of the case should be credited,[11] though not accepted as truth when factual discrepancies are clear. [read post]
22 Feb 2023, 1:07 pm by Dennis Crouch
And it may help judges prevent (or call into question) misrepresentations about David v. [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 12:51 pm by Giles Peaker
Marigold et al v Wells (2023) UKUT 33 (LC) – Upper Tribunal on a reasonable excuse defence to a rent repayment order. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 5:14 am by INFORRM
Canada The Superior Court of Justice, Ontario handed down judgement in Marcellin v LPS et all 2022 ONSC 5886. [read post]
15 Sep 2022, 1:24 pm by admin
Would courts have to take judicial notice of the clear consensus and shut down any attempt to get to the truth of the matter? [read post]
  There have also been reports that the FTC is actively investigating violations of past merger consent decrees, potentially with the aim of unwinding the previously cleared merger.15 In this vein, the agencies have been issuing “close at your own risk” letters to merging parties in non-challenged and non-remedy transactions that remind the parties that the agencies retain the authority to challenge mergers after they have closed and that expiration of an HSR waiting period… [read post]