Search for: "MAY v. MAY" Results 2461 - 2480 of 183,103
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 May 2022, 1:35 am by INFORRM
On 5 May 2022, there was a hearing in the case of Hamblin v News Group Newspapers Limited before Nicklin J On 6 May 2022, there was a hearing in the case of Hijazi v Yaxley Lennon before Nicklin J. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 10:33 am by The Public Employment Law Press
State voters may amend a state's constitution to prohibit consideration of racial preferences with respect admission to colleges and universities if it does not reflect a racially discriminatory purpose Schuette v. [read post]
25 May 2019, 3:34 am
Author Pumbaa80Licence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 unportedSource Wikipedia: Portal Association Football  Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Nugee) Davies v Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club (1986) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1252 (Ch) (15 May 2019) This was a claim for infringement of copyright. [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 11:16 am by Howard Bashman
“The ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment could lead to an Article V Constitutional Convention; If states cannot rescind their ratification proposals, then 2/3 of the states may have already voted to call an Article V Constitutional Convention for the Balanced Budget Amendment”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 4:14 pm by Amanda Hairston
The Second Circuit recently issued a decision in MBIA Inc. v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 7:15 am by Adam Schlossman
Dawson, counsel for respondent Lynn Switzer in Skinner v. [read post]
24 May 2007, 1:49 pm
There  were  three recent trademark decisions from the Canadian  courts that readers may find of interest: Expungement Allowed - In Candrug Health Solutions Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2019, 5:43 am by Joel R. Brandes
Corp. v. 2319 Richmond Terrace Corp., 141 A.D.3d 626, 627, 34 N.Y.S.3d 616).Oral promise to pay credit card bills during the pendency of action unenforceable            In Novick v Novick, ‑‑‑ N.Y.S.3d ‑‑‑‑, 2019 WL 2202438 (Mem), 2019 N.Y. [read post]
27 Aug 2007, 6:11 am
The voluntary participant is deemed to have consented to apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of engaging in the sport.But a gym class is different than the outside world, according to New York's Appellate Division, Second Department, where there is a significant disparity between the learned instructors and the neophyte students, as well as the "persuasion" that may be used to "force" a student to complete a task.In Calouri v. [read post]