Search for: "Sees v. Sees" Results 3221 - 3240 of 122,060
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Dec 2010, 8:57 am by Dwight Sullivan
The Navy JAG Corps will probably be happy to see 2010 in its rearview mirror. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 3:41 am
See Maxwell, 446 F.3d at 1216-17 (finding a market for child pornography and upholding congressional regulation of same); United States v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 3:33 am by traceydennis
Jenson and another v Faux [2011] EWCA Civ 423;  [2011] WLR (D)  133 “A contractor who carried out works to a dwelling owed a duty under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to see that the work was done in a workmanlike or professional manner. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 5:12 am by Simon Fodden
A, 2013 SCC 5, otherwise known as Eric v. [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 9:59 pm by Rosalind English
This morning we reported on the case of Sinclair Collis Ltd v Secretary of State for Health & Anor [2010] EWHC 3112 (Admin) – see Isabel McArdle’s post on the case. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 11:17 am
It's just so strange to see a Ninth Circuit opinion that says:  "Pizzuto claimed . . . that Judge Reinhardt made public statements of his intent to impose the death penalty before the sentencing hearing. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 11:53 am
I occasionally make fun of various appeals that concern trivial sums, particularly when the transaction costs of litigating the matter completely swamp what's at stake.I'm glad to see the Court of Appeal make a similar mention.Justice Raye begins the opinion by saying: "In this case, the services of an appointed counsel and a deputy attorney general, together with three justices and staff of this court, are applied to the resolution of a single issue: whether the… [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 1:04 pm
You don't get many appellate cases about interrogatories, much less opinions that address your standard boilerplate objections that we routinely see in everyday litigation. [read post]
30 Jul 2009, 12:52 pm
You might want to read this opinion to see the scintillating discussion therein regarding whether "Asians" -- as opposed to "Chinese" or "Filipino" -- are a cognizable ethnic group for purposes of juror composition. [read post]