Search for: "Clark v. Judge" Results 261 - 280 of 2,304
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Oct 2021, 4:21 pm by INFORRM
On 12 October 2021, Oxford County Court handed down judgment in Fairhurst v Woodard (Case No: G00MK161). [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 3:04 pm by Eugene Volokh
  From Judge Stephen Clark's opinion in Steak N Shake, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 11:35 am by Jonathan Shaub
And there is no doubt Meadows, Scavino, Patel, and others, like Trump’s Justice Department ally Jeffrey Clark, are watching carefully what happens with Bannon—who, unlike the other three, was not a government employee during the time at issue. [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 1:37 am by INFORRM
In the case of Fairhurst v Woodard [pdf] in the Oxford County Court, Judge Melissa Clarke held that security cameras and a Ring doorbell “unjustifiably invaded” the privacy of a neighbour, broke data laws and contributed to harassment. [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 8:19 am by Bob Ambrogi
It also covers these state courts: Clark County, Nev., District Court. [read post]
20 Sep 2021, 7:07 am by Eugene Volokh
[The same logic would apply to Orthodox Jewish women, and to men who wear religious headgear,] From Clark v. [read post]
20 Sep 2021, 4:30 am by Eric Segall
Having said that, I do think Professor Colb's position needs to be taken quite seriously and I will do more thinking about it in the future.Three of my favorite in-person debate opponents are Professors Ilya Somin and Jonathan Adler, and Clark Neily of Cato (among others). [read post]
19 Sep 2021, 6:51 am
 Jane LambertIntellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Melissa Clarke)  A-Ward Attachments Ltd v Fabcon Engineering Ltd [2021] EWHC 2145 (IPEC) (29 July 2021)This was an action for the infringement of European patent (UK) number EP 2 021 268 B1 ("268") for freight container tilting apparatus and European patent (UK) number EP 2 128 053 B1 ("053") for container tilting apparatus and a [read post]
10 Aug 2021, 5:00 am
Under the law, dicta is statements or commentary made by a judge that is not a necessary part of the reasoning behind a judge’s holding or decision. [read post]