Search for: "Party X v. Party Y"
Results 221 - 240
of 462
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jun 2016, 10:19 am
The majority retorted that the solution to an infringement of X constitutional right is not to give the plaintiffs Y, which is not a constitutional right. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 1:20 pm
Or maybe, in (B), Doug's Widgets sells the widgets to X, Y, and Z on credit, but then Doug's goes bankrupt.If there's legally an agreement, then presumably in (A), I can sue eBay for screwing up the sale, and in (B), Acme Manufacturing can sue X, Y, and Z for the purchase price of the widgets, right? [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:02 pm
WINN v. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 5:55 am
Some of such consequences are discussed below:Partner X of a partnership firm files a suit in 2011 making serious allegations of fraud against Partner Y. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 6:32 am
Swiss-type claims take the form:"use of a drug X in the manufacture/preparation of a medicament for the treatment of disease Y"EPC 2000 claims take the form of: "Drug X for the treatment of disease Y"The European Patent Office's Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) have told us that these claims are not synonymous in scope (see T 1780/12 - University of Texas) and you cannot amend from one to another. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 1:33 pm
Gore & Assocs v. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 1:33 pm
Gore & Assocs v. [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 6:40 am
State v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 7:53 am
But, as the Court of Appeal made clear in a decision (X v Y) in 2004, what is “private life” depends on the circumstances, such as whether the conduct is on private premises and, if not, whether it happens in circumstances in which there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy of that kind”.ame result in the UK? [read post]
9 Dec 2015, 6:50 am
[W]hen a party cannot satisfy its state duties without the Federal Government’s special permission and assistance, which is dependent on the exercise of judgment by a federal agency, that party cannot independently satisfy those state duties for pre-emption purposes.Mensing, 131 S. [read post]
18 Nov 2015, 1:43 pm
., where defendant agreed to plead guilty to X offense, in return for Y sentence, but now seeks relief (as authorized by Proposition 47) to reduce the X offense to a misdemeanor and hence only have to serve a sentence of less-than-Y.So does the passage of Proposition 47 allow the prosecution to retroactively withdraw from the plea agreement, even after the defendant has (as here) served years in prison, or do we assume that both parties (the prosecution and the… [read post]
31 Oct 2015, 4:29 pm
Section 2 of the Representation Agreement Regulationdefines routing management of the adult’s financial affairs as follows:2 (1) For the purposes of section 7 (1) (b) of the Act, the following activities constitute "routine management of the adult's financial affairs":(a) paying the adult's bills;(b) receiving the adult's pension, income and other money;(c) depositing the adult's pension, income and other money in the adult's accounts;(d) opening… [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 2:24 am
The Panopticon blog has a post about the decision in W, X, Y and Z v Secretary of State for Health, Secretary of State for the Home Department and British Medical Association [2015] EWCA Civ 1034 concerning the sharing of medical information. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 2:51 pm
A state court can say, "We find that procedure X violates provision Y of the United States Constitution. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 4:32 pm
While one might argue that the class action mechanism renders such knowledge defenses irrelevant as a matter of collateral estoppel, a class benefitting from the Basic presumption is never accurately defined merely as purchasers between dates “X and Y,” but rather should be defined as purchasers between dates “X + Y, who did not know or believe that the misrepresentation was false or that an omission occurred. [read post]
10 Sep 2015, 2:16 pm
Plaintiff says X in his original complaint. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 7:14 pm
Co. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 7:52 am
App’x at 919. [read post]
20 Aug 2015, 12:47 pm
Co. v. [read post]
