Search for: "Strong v. Strong"
Results 2341 - 2360
of 19,587
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Dec 2011, 2:27 am
In United States v. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 7:54 am
In US v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 7:15 am
Al-Rushaid v. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 5:32 pm
R. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 2:34 pm
Div., A-3333-09T4, February 15, 2012: There is a strong public policy in New Jersey “favoring the use of consensual agreements to resolve marital controversies. [read post]
11 Apr 2015, 9:01 am
For anyone looking for recent evidence and analysis of courts' application of ebay v. [read post]
23 Mar 2024, 10:00 am
The court distinguishes Lemmon v. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 11:02 am
., v. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 1:25 pm
SCOTUS granted cert today in Kentucky v. [read post]
31 Oct 2019, 8:47 am
Case citation: Bardales v. [read post]
21 Aug 2024, 10:51 am
Case Citation: Santos v. [read post]
Chandigarh Admn v. Nemo: Should a mentally retarted woman be denied the right to keep her pregnancy?
18 Jul 2009, 3:32 pm
[Ranjit Kumar Rajak v. [read post]
13 Jul 2022, 1:55 am
Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. [read post]
6 Oct 2022, 9:15 am
–Sedlik v. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 1:07 pm
I wrote a short post on Monday's decision in Cuozzo v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 6:29 am
At this point the IPKat has to decide: should he (a) oppose the application by AT Osborne BV on the ground that, given the similarity of the marks and the identity/similarity of the services, there is a likelihood of confusion among relevant consumers, (b) seek an assurance or undertaking from AT Osborne BV that it will limit its specification to reflect the services it actually provides or to exclude the services provided in the field of law, business, finance, media, telecommunications,… [read post]
8 Mar 2007, 1:02 pm
However, as no Maryland authority was found, the Court relied on the strong presumption that judges and court clerks . . . properly perform their duties, and such presumption also applies to the trial court's duty to be certain that the jury was sworn. [read post]
16 May 2010, 10:22 am
It also discussed a number of cases from other jurisdictions that emphasized the strong public policy reasons for protecting employees that lodge internal complaints.The second issue was whether a claim under the Act is cognizable if employees committing the asserted bad conduct do not have authority to set company policy. [read post]
23 Aug 2007, 3:01 pm
These questions suggest that the dispute could turn on whether a country strong enough and interested enough to ignore a particular international legal obligation will do so. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 9:35 am
It seems a bit to me like “strenuously objecting” with the exception that the Samsung event apparently was not in front of a jury: Nonetheless, in the court of public opinion, displaying such a strong belief in the crucial nature of certain evidence could win over consumers which really may be the point. [read post]
