Search for: "Matter of C. F. v C. M."
Results 361 - 380
of 1,376
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jan 2020, 5:48 am
CPLR 3215 (b), as amended provides that a party entitled to judgment may be permitted to submit, in addition to the proof required by CPLR 3215 (f), properly executed affidavits or affirmations as proof of damages. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 12:03 pm
C. [read post]
23 Dec 2019, 1:19 pm
See, e.g., Report at 13 n.22; C-SPAN at 2:10:50. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 11:59 pm
It has also been argued that the matter of double patenting by two EP patents is not an EPO matter, but a matter of national law - as it is of double patenting between an EP patent and a national patent or national utility model (Art. 139(3) EPC).In oral proceedings in early February this year, the Board decided to refer questions to the Enlarged Board to clarify the matter. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 10:17 am
M. [read post]
10 Dec 2019, 4:00 am
The case was Schwaner v. [read post]
23 Nov 2019, 9:46 am
Thus the Union’s traditional areas of competence in economic matters affect the lives of Europeans. [read post]
17 Nov 2019, 7:33 am
I’m not entirely sure on what basis the difference with leasehold cases like Earle v Charalambous (our note) is made out. [read post]
14 Nov 2019, 8:09 am
The statute providing for Supreme Court review of decisions of “the highest court[s] of a state” only extends to “[f]inal judgments. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 11:20 am
Peterson, 812 F.2d 486, 492 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 9:30 am
United States, 595 F.2d 614 (1979); see also Aaron v. [read post]
8 Nov 2019, 1:49 pm
(No, I’m not making this up.) [read post]
8 Nov 2019, 1:49 pm
(No, I’m not making this up.) [read post]
8 Nov 2019, 8:11 am
(No, I’m not making this up.) [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 7:34 pm
State v. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 5:01 am
See, e.g., Lampon-Paz v, DHS, 532 F. [read post]
1 Nov 2019, 12:30 pm
Paul M. [read post]
31 Oct 2019, 5:59 am
But each largely makes four basic points: (a) The concept of executive privilege is hotly disputed; (b) there are very few relevant court cases and none that provide definitive answers; (c) there are a number of historical incidents, from the administration of George Washington to that of Barack Obama, that are of debatable—and contested—significance; and (d) the legal resolution of these highly disputed questions is likely of little practical significance. [read post]
25 Oct 2019, 10:00 am
Because of the limited punishments that can be imposed, "[c]riminal defamation defendants are not entitled to a trial by jury" and "state law does not afford indigent criminal defamation defendants the right to court-appointed counsel. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 8:36 am
Last month, the military commission for the matter of United States v. [read post]
