Search for: "Figures v. Figures"
Results 3301 - 3320
of 15,515
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Dec 2022, 4:28 pm
The Appellate Division, quoting Lerner Pavlick Realty v. [read post]
8 Oct 2020, 10:14 am
The figure does not include combat deaths from wars. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 12:18 pm
The United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Curver Luxembourg, Sarl v. [read post]
11 Jun 2008, 5:15 am
QuestionThe scenario presented in United States v. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 5:47 pm
For example, in January 2009 in the case of Cantu v Flanigan a New York City jury awarded US$188 million to a Mexican contractor who claimed that an American businessman severely damaged his reputation. [read post]
28 Aug 2007, 4:04 pm
In California, however, such plans were also possibly unlawful until the California Supreme Court issued its recent decision in Prachasaisoradej v. [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 5:15 pm
The $500,000 figure is adjusted annually for inflation after 2011. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 8:18 am
On 16 March 2023, the High Court of England and Wales handed down its judgment following the FRAND trial in InterDigital v Lenovo. [read post]
11 Jul 2007, 3:55 am
Also, defendant lacked standing in search of rental car, but he could be asked for consent to look for the rental agreement [go figure!]. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 7:51 am
Dominion v. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 2:45 pm
In today's case (Foo v. [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 4:30 am
The courts generally accept, as a starting point, the "Ready Reckoner" (see for example paragraph 4 of Atack v Lee [2004] EWCA Civ 1712). [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 6:37 am
We wrote last May about the court’s rejection of a $1.75 million settlement in Cruz v. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 7:54 am
Facts: This case (Lawrence v. [read post]
12 Jun 2007, 12:01 pm
Second, there is no evidence that even the $300,000 figure, nor any other figure, is what is called a Tier One remediation cost, or that it was calibrated to any particular standard of remediation. [read post]
29 Jul 2008, 10:01 pm
New Jersey Caselaw: In Suarez v. [read post]
19 May 2007, 5:14 pm
The "billionaire loophole" arises because Supreme Court doctrine since Buckley v. [read post]
7 Mar 2007, 9:38 am
It culminates in Figure 1.1, a general diagram that is carried forward into Part II of the article. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 11:28 pm
In Apple v. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 7:50 am
Dismissal of their Title VII disparate impact claim was also affirmed due to their failure to exhaust their administrative remedies (Burgis v. [read post]
