Search for: "Reed v. High"
Results 361 - 380
of 662
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jan 2008, 11:59 pm
And yet this week the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Baze v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
24 Mar 2024, 8:50 am
This decision followed the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Hamilton International Ltd v. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 12:06 pm
Reed, Hammond, IN. [read post]
27 May 2013, 12:48 am
In Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet Europe Ltd [2009] EWHC 657 (Ch), before the Chancery Division of the High Court, England and Wales, Mr Justice Arnold found that Skovmund had breached his duty not to use any confidential information acquired during his work for Vestergaard and that Sig was liable. too. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 8:33 am
In this guest post, she shares her thoughts and updates us on the related developments.Pemetrexed pops up in MilanGuest Kat Eibhlin gives takes us through the recent decision handed down by the Court of Milan which forms part of the long running multi-jurisdictional battle concerning Eli Lilly's patent protecting its pemetrexed (Alimta) product.Medical data in a twist - Technomed v BluecrestGuest Kat Rosie demystifies database rights with the recent decision of Technomed v… [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 8:56 am
Purdum v. [read post]
18 May 2007, 2:50 pm
US (1971); Reed v. [read post]
18 May 2007, 2:50 pm
US (1971); Reed v. [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 1:50 am
(Fourth issue) The Supreme Court’s judgment Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Kitchin, with whom Lord Hodge agreed, gave the majority judgment, with Lord Carnwath dissenting in part. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 9:39 am
See FTC v. 1-800 Contacts. * Cedar Valley Exteriors, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2021, 3:18 pm
" … The court concluded the pronoun portion of the law was a content-based speech restriction (it didn't discuss the name portion in detail): Applying Reed v. [read post]
16 Nov 2015, 4:35 pm
Section 9(2) codified the approach of the Court of Appeal in Dow Jones v Jameel [2005] EWCA Civ 75 (03 February 2005) established that there needs to be a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction for a defamation claim to be made (see also Sullivan v Bristol Film Studios [2012] EWCA civ 570 (03 May 2012); Reed Elsevier (t/a Lexisnexis) v Bewry [2014] EWCA Civ 1411 (30 October 2014)). [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 4:23 am
The Facts Prime 135 NY, LLC (“Prime”) was formed to own and operate a high-end Italian restaurant. [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 12:57 pm
More than 50 years after the Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" in Brown v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm
See Stanger v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 9:00 pm
Reed Elsevier v. [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 1:49 pm
In Texas v. [read post]
3 May 2010, 6:35 am
Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
