Search for: "Matter of Howard v Howard" Results 321 - 340 of 1,168
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jan 2018, 3:52 am
  The applicant in this matter was CKL Holdings NV, a Dutch company which is owned and controlled by Mr Michael Gleissner. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
In Howard Kennedy v The National Trust for Scotland [2017] EWHC 3368 (QB), the High Court considered two complex issues: one relating to the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the other to the CPR provisions on service of a claim form. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman highlights two exchanges from the oral argument in Husted v. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 4:28 am by Edith Roberts
” At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman looks at one of next week’s cases, Hall v. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am by Ben
In the UK in FAPL v BT [2017] Mr Justice Arnold concluded that the High Court has the jurisdiction to make an order against an access provider that would require the ISP to block access not to a website but rather streaming servers giving unauthorised access to copyright content - 'live' blocking. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 4:00 am by Administrator
In the recent case (J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm by ligitsec
105 S.Ct. 2218 85 L.Ed.2d 588 HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS, INC. and the Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., Petitionersv.NATION ENTERPRISES and the Nation Associates, Inc. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 11:46 am by Eugene Volokh
These “compelling interests” must go beyond the mere “desire to avoid unnecessary embarrassment,” See Howard v. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 3:01 am by Walter Olson
Riviera Beach (scope of First Amendment claims for retaliatory arrest), Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 7:45 am by jameswilson29@gmail.com
The wife’s argument that the debt did not fit within the ambit of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(15) because it was owed to a third party and not directly to her former spouse was rejected by the court, citing Howard v. [read post]