Search for: "BAKER v BAKER" Results 3221 - 3240 of 4,848
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 May 2007, 11:21 am
Chief Judge Baker's opinion begins:Appellant-third-party-plaintiff Charles W. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 12:01 pm by Dennis Crouch
By Dennis Crouch Typhoon Touch Tech. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 4:00 am by INFORRM
The balance between privacy and transparency in regard to disclosing MPs’ expenses was comprehensively settled by the High Court in 2008, following a trilogy of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeals in the then Information Tribunal: Leapman [pdf], Baker [pdf] and Moffat [pdf]. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 4:26 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Jack Phillips, the baker whose refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple took him to the Supreme Court this term in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 7:44 pm
After dutifully arguing for four pages that he was bound by the ancient one-line decision from the Supreme Court in Baker v. [read post]
8 May 2019, 1:21 pm by MOTP
Howell, Judge Presiding.Affirmed.Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana.MEMORANDUM OPINIONGISELA D. [read post]
5 Sep 2019, 1:55 pm by sydniemery
Catherine Martin Christopher, Nevertheless She Persisted: Comparing Roe v. [read post]
27 Apr 2014, 11:19 pm
Maynard — and then suggested by the concurring opinions in United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 10:26 am by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
  Congress and state governments almost certainly will be forced to deal with these broader challenges regardless of the outcome of King v. [read post]
7 Apr 2019, 4:03 pm by INFORRM
On 3 April 2019 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the libel appeal of Stocker v Stocker ([2019] UKSC 17). [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 7:09 am by emagraken
The remaining decisions touch upon, if not directly address, the document disclosure obligations under both Rule 7-1(1)(a) and Rule 7-1(14) of the SCCR. [40] In addition, Master Baker has recently discussed the application of Rule 7-1 in Burgess v. [read post]