Search for: "Mark v. Mark" Results 301 - 320 of 34,421
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Apr 2024, 5:00 am by Sarah Friedman
In 2024, we mark the 70th anniversary of this historic decision by looking back on the case’s procedural history and sharing the resources available at the Library of Congress for further research. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 2:37 am by Mark Schickman, Schickman Law
Even if you are in the right when you file a lawsuit against a former employee who admittedly took your trade secrets, sometimes the reward is simply not worth the expense. [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 11:27 am by admin
Another multi-district litigation (MDL) has hit a jarring speed bump. [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 7:02 am by Ellena Erskine
EDT, the justices will hear oral argument in Moyle v. [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 5:57 am by Norman L. Eisen
Mark Esper, Trump’s former defense secretary, has warned of “more … hyper-aggressive behavior” by Trump if he takes office, recounting when Trump asked if demonstrators gathering around the White House following the death of George Floyd could be shot. [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 1:52 am by Yosi Yahoudai
It marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered a state ban since Roe was reversed. [read post]
23 Apr 2024, 6:24 am by Felix Le Roux
  The case is Organi Mark (Pty) Ltd v Goolam Nabi Ebrahim Akoodie and Another (240/2023) [2024] ZASCA 44 (8 April 2024). [read post]
23 Apr 2024, 6:24 am by Felix Le Roux
  The case is Organi Mark (Pty) Ltd v Goolam Nabi Ebrahim Akoodie and Another (240/2023) [2024] ZASCA 44 (8 April 2024). [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 6:28 pm by Ilya Somin
PLF attorney Mark Miller (author of the brief) has a helpful summary in a recent Fox News article. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 8:30 am by Trane Robinson
This marks the first time the Court has invited the silcrow—better known as the “section symbol” (§). [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 4:28 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Although summary judgment is not appropriate in a malpractice action where the parties submit conflicting expert opinions, “expert opinions that are conclusory, speculative, or unsupported by the record are insufficient to raise triable issues of fact” (Longhi v Lewit, 187 AD3d 873, 877 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lowe v Japal, 170 AD3d 701, 702). [read post]