Search for: "Little v. Williams" Results 2421 - 2440 of 2,719
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Apr 2009, 12:45 am
The Court had asked for briefing on whether Jackson should be overturned in the context of Montejo v. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 10:00 am
Lesson learned from a business survey’ (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (IAM) Speakers discuss technology transfer for climate change; within academic settings (Intellectual Property Watch) The ‘dirty little secret of patents’ is that most are worthless to their owners. [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 4:20 am
A good share of the blame for corporate governance failures (and poorly performing corporations in general belong to passive boards of directors (the members of which are often handsomely remunerated).[2]     These individuals frequently serve on numerous boards while spending very little time examining the activities of the corporation - the details of which are frequently supplied by management. [read post]
16 Apr 2009, 9:52 pm
The bill reads as follows: 09 Senate Resolution 632 By: Senators Pearson of the 51st, Rogers of the 21st, Williams of the 19th, Wiles of the 37th, Mullis of the 53rd and others ADOPTED SENATE A RESOLUTION Affirming states' rights based on Jeffersonian principles; and for other purposes. - Notice that little "and for other purposes? [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 4:44 am
Williams, 961 So.2d 795, 811 (Ala. 2007); Hinton v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 2:55 pm
For a little help on that question, we checked in earlier today wtih Daniel Richman, a criminal-law professor at Columbia. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 8:48 pm
   Much as with Plessy v. [read post]
21 Mar 2009, 5:38 pm
Williams (1998), 124 C.C.C. (3d) 481 at 494 (S.C.C.); R. v. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 2:50 pm
He was supported by Justice Stephen Breyer in his objection to the court's ruling on Monday in the case, Thompson v. [read post]
8 Mar 2009, 8:17 am
As I discussed here, the Delaware Supreme Court recently decided Wood v. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 6:30 am
This is the third in the four-part series from the brain injury case of Gregory Joseph Gagnon, et al. v. [read post]