Search for: "Queen v. Queen" Results 3841 - 3860 of 4,044
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Feb 2012, 9:22 pm by Charon QC
And let’s go for a hat trick of good reads (not that the blog posts which I refer to below are not good reads… they are… but Carl Gardner, on his Head of Legal blog, writes: Supreme Court judgment: Sugar v BBC “The Supreme Court has today given judgment in this case, about the extent to which the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to information the BBC holds for journalistic purposes…. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 11:25 am by Heather Morse (Milligan)
Faith cautioned not to be arrogant by saying “you are the king or queen” of “x. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 1:47 pm by GuestPost
The ‘Junk’ decision in 2005 (C-188/03, Junk v Kuhnel) has meant, that worker consultations need now take place before any final decision on job losses is taken. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 11:35 am
Historical footnote: I chaired the first ever CPD training session on intellectual property for solicitors, at the Queen Mary College IP Unit, on Day 1. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 12:10 pm by hls
But there were a lot of pro se homeowners. 11:23- 75% of folks in settlement conference have a lawyer to assist them in homeowner stuff in Brooklyn and Queens. 11:24- There is legal aid available, but people in legal services bang their heads against the wall because they’re still seeing the same problems. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 4:00 am by Deanne Sowter
McLellan v Birbilis In McLellan v Birbilis, 2021 ONSC 7084, Justice Nicole Tellier debunked (again!) [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 5:35 pm by jefhenninger
Luis Flores was an attorney who had a solo practice in Queens. [read post]
15 Feb 2017, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
Interestingly, the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Fulford LJ and Leggatt J) permitted a McKenzie Friend, Dr Michael Pelling, to make representations on his behalf. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 4:51 am by Peter Mahler
” Case No. 3: Chun You Cheng v Yang, 2020 NY Slip Op 50801(U) [Sup Ct Queens County July 9, 2020] The opening line in the analysis portion of Commercial Division Justice Leonard Livote’s post-trial opinion last week (read here) says it all: In this case, the parties invested millions of dollars in the construction of a multi-story building. [read post]