Search for: "Power v. Holder"
Results 2561 - 2580
of 2,842
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Aug 2014, 8:33 pm
He has been awarded the Vespasian V. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 10:40 am
Naxos, 830 NE 2d 250 (2005).See Goldstein v. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
Although it was the product of a 2-1 split decision, the ruling in United States v. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 3:11 am
Reese v Newman In a decision last month by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Reese v Newman, No. 14-CV-283 [D.C. [read post]
Rare Partnership Dissolution Decision Applies Deadlock Standard to Dissolution Under Partnership Law
22 Jan 2018, 3:44 am
After a lengthy interlude, along comes Magid v Magid, 2017 NY Slip Op 32603(U) [Sup Ct NY County Dec. 14, 2017]. [read post]
26 Apr 2009, 11:36 am
Attorney General Eric Holder is "nearing decision" on the release of an initial group of Guantanamo detainees. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 3:11 am
Reese v Newman In a decision last month by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Reese v Newman, No. 14-CV-283 [D.C. [read post]
18 May 2020, 11:30 am
See American Legion v. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 2:03 pm
First, Howlett v. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 6:09 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 9:41 am
Rather than acknowledging a fiduciary’s consent as “lawful consent” under the federal statute (id.; see Ajemian v Yahoo! [read post]
31 May 2017, 3:12 am
In Taylor & Lieberman v. [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 3:31 am
There is a related risk that the exercise of monopoly power by SEP owners could lead to the need for implementers to obtain multiple licences (known as the problem of ‘royalty-stacking’). [read post]
2 Jan 2017, 1:19 am
El Paso Pipeline GP Company, LLC v Brinckerhoff, No. 103, 2016 [Del. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 3:11 am
Reese v Newman In a decision last month by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Reese v Newman, No. 14-CV-283 [D.C. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 3:22 pm
See Teleprompter Corp. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 3:26 pm
No, says the Supreme Court of India in Sri Kumar Padma Prasad v Union of India : (1992) 2 SCC 428, an important case concerning the validity of appointment of a certain Mr Srivastava to the Gauhati High Court. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 12:46 pm
In IO Group v. [read post]
10 Aug 2022, 9:05 pm
The activist must also solicit the holders of shares representing at least 67 percent of the voting power of the shares entitled to vote at the meeting. [read post]
13 May 2011, 1:28 pm
” See Komas v. [read post]
