Search for: "Head v State"
Results 2081 - 2100
of 14,945
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Nov 2012, 2:16 pm
” Although Vanity is doing pretty well for itself, expanding to nearly 200 stores across the country, and claims to have used “V” design in its trademark since the mid 1950’s, it doesn’t seem too keen on going head-to-head with Levi in court. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 9:31 pm
V. [read post]
15 Mar 2014, 8:31 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 1:46 am
The third day of the trial in the case of Sir Cliff Richard v BBC continued yesterday before Mr Justice Mann with evidence for the claimant from two police witnesses. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 3:09 am
Above every paragraph are headings which name various causes of action. [read post]
28 Feb 2008, 4:30 am
Stine v. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 5:54 am
State v. [read post]
6 May 2019, 6:12 am
Dohme v. [read post]
3 May 2008, 7:28 am
Updating this entry yesterday on the Court of Appeals decision in the case of Joseph Bonner et al v. [read post]
16 Mar 2018, 11:11 am
Ridnicki v. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 1:35 pm
In Bowen v. [read post]
30 Dec 2021, 9:12 am
No benefit the state may assert can outweigh the countervailing public interest in protecting consumers. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 6:56 am
Housekeeping Services of Hilton Head, LLC, et al., No. 9:17-cv-00800 (D.S.C. [read post]
30 Jun 2024, 11:01 am
The Supreme Court decision in Ohio et al. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 8:00 am
Clavet v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 8:18 am
If the victim does not wish to testify the government will attempt to admit the 911 calls into evidence, pursuant to case law from the United States Supreme Court, that that allows statements made to a 911 operator to come into evidence without the defendant being given the opportunity to cross-examine the victim under a case known as Davis v. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 10:00 am
In the State of Utah v. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 11:45 am
Knudsen v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 11:46 am
Cal Cunningham NC State Senate District 21– Eric L. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 10:14 am
Thus, in R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence [2006] 1 WLR 3213 para 165 provides that in discrimination cases there should be a structured approach to the question of justification: “First, is the objective sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right? [read post]
