Search for: "Party X v. Party Y"
Results 321 - 340
of 463
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Aug 2012, 12:00 am
However, as against this, it can be said that the word “may” is used because the clause contemplates two modes of service (service may be either by X method or by Y method). [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 7:48 am
I associate myself with the sentiments and frustration expressed by Munby J in In Re X & Y (ibid) which I expect is shared by the other family judges, not only those in the Family Division. [read post]
22 Jun 2012, 8:03 am
Suppose I say that X is better tax policy than Y. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 4:01 pm
Plaintiff files a malicious prosecution lawsuit against Defendant X based upon a lawsuit filed and dismissed not by X, but by Y, and asserts that X is Y's successor in interest. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 8:07 pm
Consider making conditional offers (“if you agree to X, we might consider Y”). [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm
Is X really going to decide Y because s/he owns some stock and might potentially see an insubstantial upswing in a stock price? [read post]
24 May 2012, 11:21 am
See, e.g., Oxendine v. [read post]
23 May 2012, 11:10 am
If the contract in fact contains your obligation to do x y or z, you may be out of luck without more. [read post]
21 May 2012, 10:38 am
Iacovelli * Republishing Third Party Ratings in Marketing Material Might Be Copyright/Trademark Infringement--Health Grades v. [read post]
22 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
The division held that the subject-matter of claim 1 differed from the device of I2 […] in that it included the (additional and final) feature dealing with the relationship between the light output L and the signal level V. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 6:01 am
Shack and Jacques v. [read post]
8 Apr 2012, 3:39 pm
An ordinal function tells us that individual i prefers possible world X to possible world Y, but it doesn't tell us whether X is much better than Y or only a little better. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 12:49 am
Interestingly, Nollan v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 6:37 am
In this Court, petitioners attempt to challenge the ordinance on two additional grounds: They argue that it constitutes [X] a denial of substantive due process and [Y] a regulatory taking. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 9:52 am
Mukasey, Diallo v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 1:41 pm
Regular readers of the blog will recall that X and Y v LB Hounslow (above) was appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (Application no. 32666/10 by X,Y and Z against the United Kingdom) as permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 4:02 am
In ordering their extraction, DJ Evans acknowledged the impact on the children: “The worst case presented to me is that Z would be put up for adoption and X and Y would be fostered, but that might not necessarily mean keeping them together . . . [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 11:00 pm
His Honour Judge Bellamy’s criticism at paragraph 193 of L (A Child: Media Reporting), Re [2011] EWHC B8 (Fam) of The Daily Telegraph’s Christopher Booker’s reporting of the case as “unbalanced, inaccurate and just plain wrong”, a criticism supported by Sir Nicholas Wall in X, Y, and Z & Anor v A Local Authority[2011] EWHC 1157 (Fam) at paragraph 102. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 10:03 pm
Then I always get dubious looks when I say, "Officers can do X, Y but not Z. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 11:55 am
Both parties make trip-blade and trip-edge plows. [read post]
