Search for: "Bridges v. Bridges" Results 241 - 260 of 3,829
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Mar 2010, 2:40 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Johnson, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 385 (04 March 2010) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Houldsworth & Anor v Bridge Trustees Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 179 (04 March 2010) Malik v Kalyan [2010] EWCA Civ 113 (04 March 2010) High Court (Chancery Division) Vercoe & Ors v Rutland Fund Management Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 424 (Ch) (05 March 2010) Bellway Homes Ltd v Beazer Homes Ltd [2010] EWHC 423 (Ch)… [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 1:56 pm by Ruthann Robson
Professor Ruthann Robson, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law The Second Circuit has granted full court review in Garcia v. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 11:00 am by Ruthann Robson
Professor Ruthann Robson, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law A panel of the Second Circuit issued its amended opinion in Garcia v. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 6:01 am
Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Dorgan (D-ND) have introduced the Carbon Reduction Technology Bridge Act of 2008, which would provide tax incentives for clean coal technology, including CCS. [read post]
28 Sep 2012, 4:32 pm
On Monday, Sept 24, the Washington D of E and the Coast Guard responded to a report that 71-foot wooden hulled F/V WESTERN FLYER, built in 1937, had sunk with a possible 750 gallons of fuel in the northern part of the Swinomish Channel near the Twin Bridge Marina and was causing noticeable oil sheen above the vessel, with some of it spreading southward down the channel. [read post]
28 Sep 2012, 4:32 pm
On Monday, Sept 24, the Washington D of E and the Coast Guard responded to a report that 71-foot wooden hulled F/V WESTERN FLYER, built in 1937, had sunk with a possible 750 gallons of fuel in the northern part of the Swinomish Channel near the Twin Bridge Marina and was causing noticeable oil sheen above the vessel, with some of it spreading southward down the channel. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 9:18 am by Gene Quinn
That was a bridge too far for the Supreme Court, who ruled today 9-0 (with concurring opinions but no dissents) that in order to invalidate patent claims 35 U.S.C. 282 requires clear and convincing evidence regardless of whether the prior art was known by the Patent Office during prosecution of the patent application. [read post]