Search for: "Party X v. Party Y"
Results 361 - 380
of 464
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2011, 4:35 am
Supreme Court's decision in Michigan v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 3:37 am
Guida v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V A. [read post]
19 May 2011, 10:47 am
Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that certifications for children's products be based on tests conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body (also commonly referred to as a third party laboratory or simply as a laboratory). [read post]
14 May 2011, 1:46 pm
And here’s the President’s two penn’orth (X Y & X and Brian Morgan [2011] EWHC 1157 (Fam)). [read post]
13 May 2011, 1:48 pm
If the court issues ruling Y, what steps are necessary to obtain appellate review? [read post]
6 May 2011, 1:56 am
Use of substance X in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of condition Y". 2. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 5:50 pm
Riverside, CA 92506Telephone: (951) = 781-1960 x 204 ? [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 11:10 am
Riverside, CA 92506Telephone: (951) = 781-1960 x 204 ? [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 10:56 am
Riverside, CA 92506Telephone: (951) = 781-1960 x 204 ? [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 10:48 am
Riverside, CA 92506Telephone: (951) = 781-1960 x 204 ? [read post]
23 Apr 2011, 4:49 am
Heymann: This is tied to TM as source indicator v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm
ARTICLE V. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 4:04 pm
I doubt that this is right; the First Amendment ban on religious decisions by secular courts should preclude slander or libel lawsuits that require evaluation of religious statements (e.g., “X is a sinner,” “X violated God’s law,” “X is not a true Christian,” etc.), but I don’t think the First Amendment should preclude such lawsuits based on ordinary secular assertions (“X had sex with Y,”… [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm
Article V describes the bases for the non-discretionary denial of extradition. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 11:12 am
More typically, Y tries to take advantage of X's negative behavioral covenants by claiming to be a third party beneficiary of the Z-X contract, but those arguments rarely work, and the plaintiffs don't try them here. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 4:30 am
The likes of Amazon used to do quite nicely on this alone, using algorithms like "People like you who bought X also liked Y". [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 4:05 pm
There was some suspicion that X and Y were the same person and had some connection with the defendants. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
Suppose that an American drug company asserted an arbitrable claim for infringement against a competitor in country X for infringement of its U.S. patent in the United States, and suppose that the tribunal, sitting in country Y, decided that the U.S. patent was invalid under the law of country X. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
Suppose that an American drug company asserted an arbitrable claim for infringement against a competitor in country X for infringement of its U.S. patent in the United States, and suppose that the tribunal, sitting in country Y, decided that the U.S. patent was invalid under the law of country X. [read post]
