Search for: "State v. Sales"
Results 3701 - 3720
of 20,855
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2018, 12:00 am
In an Order dated September 25, 2018 (Aronstein v. [read post]
16 Dec 2022, 1:04 pm
Co. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 4:30 am
Rather, today we will examine the recent decision handed down by United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Stephenson v. [read post]
15 May 2012, 7:12 am
In Bushnell v. [read post]
29 May 2009, 5:14 am
Midgulf (M) was a trader in sulphur and Groupe Chimiche Tunisien (G) was a company owned by the state of Tunisia. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 2:22 am
Parties’ submissions Firstly, Mr Robinson submitted that the line of authority beginning with Onibiyo [1996] EWCA Civ 1338 – which established that it was for the Secretary of State to decide whether further submissions constituted a fresh claim giving rise to a right of appeal – did not survive the Supreme Court’s decision in BA (Nigeria) [2009] UKSC 7. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 12:11 pm
ADT, LLC v. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 4:03 am
See United States v. [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 12:57 pm
The Court also stated that public lending is “different in nature from a sale … since the lending right remains one of the prerogatives of the author notwithstanding the sale of the physical medium containing the work”. [read post]
9 Dec 2015, 1:02 pm
See RBC Capital Mkts., LLC v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 11:00 pm
”And in response to the defendant’s objection as to the timeliness of the litigation, the AD2 thought that while the plaintiffs may have missed the window to bring the claim under a New York State “theft of equity” statute, [Real Property Law § 265-a], they timely brought their common-law fraud claim within the governing six-year period [CPLR 213[8]].Now there’s no voiding that ….# # #DECISIONR. v K & Y. [read post]
13 Apr 2021, 2:00 am
In the case of Hangey v. [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 11:00 pm
In the case of Watkins v. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 10:25 am
Thermolife Int’l, LLC v. [read post]
22 Jun 2023, 5:00 am
”Since J.C. wasn't able to rebut the franchisors’ showing that they “lacked the requisite control over the manner in which Plaza Toyota serviced vehicles,” the AD2 thought the denial of the dismissal motion was an error and reversed; dismissing all claims and cross-claims that had been asserted against those defendants.Interestingly, the failure to introduce a copy of the dealership agreement didn’t negate the franchisors’ entitlement to relief, nor did their… [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 7:44 am
Gullickson v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 9:00 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 9:00 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 7:46 pm
Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Samsung's petition for an injunction rehearing relating to the second Apple v. [read post]
19 Aug 2012, 5:47 pm
R.S. 40:964 SCHEDULE V A. [read post]
