Search for: "Strange v. Strange" Results 2861 - 2880 of 3,726
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Sep 2023, 12:23 am by Frank Cranmer
Douglas Strang, Scottish Legal News: Higgs v Farmor’s School and others. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 5:30 pm by INFORRM
   There are many strange features of the “super-injunction” story but perhaps the strangest of all is the fact that they no longer exist. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 3:29 am by Peter Mahler
And if that isn’t strange enough, following the buyout the buyer almost immediately entered into negotiations to sell the company to a third party and closed the deal for a price eventually computed by the court at about $79 million, yielding an additional payout to the first-to-sell shareholder of about $16 million. [read post]
7 Sep 2023, 5:01 am by Richard Re
One of the most salient indictments of 303 Creative v. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 7:46 am by Eric Goldman
. * Washington Post: Facebook is going to show you news that you normally avoid * WSJ: Facebook Agrees to Audit of its Metrics Following Data Controversy * Palomino v. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 5:49 am by Robert Brammer
Several of his rulings eventually reached the Supreme Court on appeal, such as the Pentagon Papers case, United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 7:22 am by lawmrh
The Goodfarb case is also cited in Harvard law professor-author Randall Kennedy‘s book, “Nigger: the strange career of a troublesome word. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 11:06 am
Apparently, In re IPO Securities Litigation overruled two Second Circuit cases on class certification:   Caridad v. [read post]
12 Jan 2008, 1:12 pm
For cases try Gay v Sheeran & Anor [1999] EWCA Civ 1621 or  Newlon Housing Trust v. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 8:44 am by Jonathan Bailey
The answer, in many ways, is more strange than the tale the film itself aims to tell. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 9:21 am by Eugene Volokh
I should note that Austria has indeed tried to restrict blasphemy of Christianity at least as recently as 1985, and continued to defend such a restriction until 1993 — see this post, which links to Otto-Preminger-Institut v. [read post]
20 May 2016, 1:54 pm by Kathy Kapusta
“It sounds strange that the Court, about 16 years ago, rejected the ‘catalyst theory’ for plaintiffs and now accepts it–or something like it—for defendants. [read post]