Search for: "State v. Holderness" Results 3861 - 3880 of 8,247
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Feb 2017, 7:00 am by Jordan Brunner
Robert Loeb and Emma Kohse examined the first invocation of the state secrets privilege by the DOJ in the Trump administration in Salim v. [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 1:58 pm by Peter Stockburger
The majority of states only require notification in the “most expedient time possible” or “without unreasonable delay. [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 6:55 am by Unknown
By Suzanne CosgroveKalshiEX LLC, a regulated designated contract market that offers event contracts, sued the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in federal court Wednesday, challenging the Commission’s September 2023 order that prohibits Kalshi from listing its controversial Congressional Control Contracts (KalshiEX LLC v. [read post]
27 May 2015, 2:31 am
Design in Case T-22/13In Joined Cases T-22/13 and T-23/13 Senz Technologies v OHIM - Impliva (Parapluies) the General Court decided on an application to invalidate two of Senz's Community designs consisting of the appearance of umbrellas as represented on the right.Impliva challenged the registrations on absolute grounds, under Article 52 in combination with Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation 6/2002 on Community designs, on the ground that the contested designs produced the same overall… [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 4:48 am by Lyle Denniston
  Arguing for the government of Argentina in Republic of Argentina v. [read post]
7 Nov 2022, 5:56 pm by David Kopel
Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
11 Apr 2014, 7:38 am
          Homesteads apply to “homes” owned by sole owners, joint tenants, tenants by the entirety, tenant in common, life estate holders, and the holders of beneficial interests in a real estate trust holding title to a residence. [read post]
25 Jul 2007, 7:00 am
A recent example of such an opposite result is the case of Jim Wells County Appraisal District v. [read post]
27 May 2024, 4:48 am by Mukarrum Ahmed
The court has also stated that the very purpose of the formal requirements imposed by Article 17 (now Article 25 of Brussels Ia) is to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established (Case 313/85 Iveco Fiat v Van Hool EU:C:1986:423, [5]). [read post]