Search for: "Sharp v. Sharp"
Results 2921 - 2940
of 3,651
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Sep 2019, 10:01 am
Nonetheless, there have been many interesting and important constitutional questions raised in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom over the last few days in the joint appeals of R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry and others v Advocate General for Scotland, in which the applicants seek a declaration of illegality in relation to Parliament’s most recent prorogation. [read post]
10 Feb 2023, 4:30 am
Term Limits v. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 1:31 pm
Baker v. [read post]
30 Oct 2021, 11:09 pm
Happy Halloween! [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 4:39 pm
Massachusetts in 1944 to Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 10:12 am
Maybe we need to balance incentives for marginal artists v. incentives for most popular, instead of incentives v. access. [read post]
8 Apr 2022, 6:30 am
And of course in Bluman v. [read post]
21 Sep 2019, 4:03 pm
Katz in a widely read blog entitled Access Copyright v. [read post]
25 Jun 2016, 6:10 pm
Fisher v. [read post]
5 Aug 2021, 2:37 pm
Sharp shift to regular regime. [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 4:00 am
It is the face of Dred Scott v. [read post]
3 Mar 2025, 4:14 am
Why such sharp division among successive appellate panels? [read post]
8 Jan 2007, 6:08 am
Williams v. [read post]
17 May 2015, 4:40 pm
On 15 May 2015 the Court of Appeal (Longmore, Ryder and Sharp LJJ) handed down judgment in Murray v Associated Newspapers, [2015] EWCA Civ 488. [read post]
7 Dec 2022, 2:22 pm
The dispute before the court in Moore v. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 8:59 am
Microsoft v. [read post]
7 Apr 2019, 8:47 pm
[emphasis added] This is the same approach employed by Justice Sharpe in Griffin v. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
In Salazar v. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 4:03 am
The court denied the respondents’ dismissal motion, finding a “sharp dispute” as to the petitioner’s stockholder status. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 5:21 am
The most interesting recent development is in the Sharp v Oppo case, where the Chinese courts confirmed for the first time that they do have jurisdiction to set global licensing terms. [read post]
