Search for: "Merrill v. State" Results 281 - 300 of 720
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jan 2014, 10:39 am
Weatherford International Ltd.Case number: 13-cv-03500 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas)Case filed: November 26, 2013Qualifying Judgment/Order: December 19, 2013 01/17/2014 04/17/2014 2013-123 In the Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.Administrative Proceeding File No. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 10:39 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
RobbinsCase number: 13-cv-06694 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York)Case filed: September 23, 2013Qualifying Judgment/Order: November 27, 2013 01/17/2014 04/17/2014 2013-125 SEC v. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 3:59 am by Terry Hart
The Supreme Court a few weeks ago agreed to review the Second Circuit’s decision in ABC v. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 6:21 am by Adam Weinstein
On October 4, 2012, Anglin pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud before the United States District Court for the Central District of California in U.S. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 8:08 am by Rebecca Tushnet
The First Sale Doctrine in the Digital Age Moderator: Karyn Temple Claggett, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Policy & International Affairs, United States Copyright Office Previous Copyright Office study concluded that first sale only covers distribution and thus doesn’t apply in digital context where reproductions are involved. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 9:04 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Merrill Defendants in class action litigation in New York federal courts have historically enjoyed a favorable state law procedural rule in certain suits. [read post]
23 Nov 2013, 9:33 am by Eugene Kontorovich
This is the murky doctrine of Merrill Dow/Grable line of Supreme Court cases about federal issues in state law causes of action. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 12:50 pm by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Art Intellect, Inc., a Utah Corporation, d/b/a Mason Hill and Virtual MG, Patrick Merrill Brody, Laura A. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 5:18 pm by Donald Thompson
The notice requirement is excused when a defendant moves for suppression of the identification testimony (CPL § 710.30[3]; People v Merrill, 87 NY2d 948; see also, People v Lopez, 84 NY2d 425). [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 6:57 am by Joy Waltemath
The suit (Calibuso v Bank of America Corp) was brought by five female employees who either worked or are working as FA for Bank of America (BofA) in various states. [read post]