Search for: "Queen v. Queen" Results 2941 - 2960 of 4,039
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jun 2018, 3:41 am by Peter Mahler
Justice Dufficy’s ruling in Matter of Kassab v Kasab, 2018 NY Slip Op 50934(U) [Sup Ct Queens County June 11, 2018], comes on the heels of a post-trial decision last year in a related case brought by Nissim in which Justice Dufficy conditionally ordered dissolution of their corporation known as Corner 160 Associates, Inc. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 9:12 pm by David Lat
Davis both expect that 3M’s latest lawsuit in Washington D.C. will fail, just as its prior two efforts failed in the New York court.3M Company v. [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 4:31 am by Peter J. Sluka
  Consider, for example, this post about a case ordering a compelled buyout of the complaining shareholder (Zulkofske v Zulkofske, 2012 NY Slip Op 51210(U) [Suffolk Co., 2012]), or this post about a case finding money damages sufficient to remedy the oppressive conduct (Hammad v Jamal Kamal Corp., 68 Misc 3d 1227(A) [Queens Co., 2020]). [read post]
10 Jan 2009, 7:34 am
In JDS Uniphase Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 6:27 am
Posted by Cydney Posner, Cooley LLP, on Sunday, March 17, 2019 Tags: Accountable Capitalism Act, Citizens United v. [read post]
2 Jun 2021, 4:29 am by admin
In 2018, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that an agreement that affected only the purchase of a product was not prima facie prohibited by section 45(1) of the Competition Act but could be prohibited under Competition Act, section 90.1 if it substantially lessened or prevented competition (see Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
West Moberly et. al. v Her Majesty the Queen et. al., SCBC Action No. 05 3802, Victoria Registry, (West Moberly) is a trial being run on a brand new electronic trial platform. [read post]
15 Apr 2018, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
On 12 April 2018 the Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal in the case of The Queen on the application of the News Media Association v The Press Recognition Panel. [read post]