Search for: "Parks v. Jones" Results 341 - 360 of 643
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jun 2018, 4:41 pm by INFORRM
On 18 to 22 June 2018 the trial in Seventy Thirty Ltd v Burki took place before HHJ Parkes QC. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 4:18 am by James Romoser
Former Solicitor General Noel Francisco is rejoining the Washington office of Jones Day, Sam Skolnik reports for Bloomberg Law. [read post]
29 Apr 2024, 2:40 am by INFORRM
Reserved Judgments Harrison v Cameron, heard 26 March 2024 (Steyn J) BW Legal Services Limited v Trustpilot,  heard 7 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Unity Plus Healthcare Limited v Clay and others,  heard 1 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Vince v Associated Newspapers, heard 19 February 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Pacini v Dow Jones, heard 13 December 2023 (HHJ Parkes KC) Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home… [read post]
As James Jones wrote in From Here to Eternity, his novel of pre-war Hawaii: "This song is Reality. [read post]
31 Oct 2023, 4:00 am by jonathanturley
Sue the clowns In another June 2023 decision in Munoz v. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 2:31 am by INFORRM
Reserved Judgments Harrison v Cameron, heard 26 March 2024 (Steyn J) BW Legal Services Limited v Trustpilot,  heard 7 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Unity Plus Healthcare Limited v Clay and others,  heard 1 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Parsons v Atkinson, heard 26 and 27 February 2024 (Farbey J) Vince v Associated Newspapers, heard 19 February 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Pacini v Dow Jones, heard 13 December 2023 (HHJ Parkes KC)… [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
Jones v Associated Newspapers Ltd, June 2007,  Eady J and a Jury. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm by Robert Kreisman
Similar blog posts:Illinois Product Defect Case Returns $2 Million Verdict for Factory Worker – Thakore v. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 4:05 am
Citing People v Weaver (12 NY3d 433) and United States v Jones (132 S Ct 945, the Court of Appeals ruled that the State's action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions but that under the relevant facts in this case “did not require a warrant. [read post]