Search for: "Christian v. Owens" Results 21 - 40 of 43
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Nov 2013, 7:24 am by Maya Angenot
Last year, the New York case of Christian Louboutin v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
Nussbaum (1) Bernard-Henry Lévy (3) Bert Parks (1) Bertrand Russell (1) Bessie Smith (1) Best of the Web (7) bestiality (14) Beta Rube (1) betamax3000 (18) Beth (the commenter) (9) Bette Davis (14) Bette Midler (1) Betty Friedan (8) Betty White (1) Beyonce (18) Bhutan (2) Bianca Jagger (1) Bible (40) Biddy Martin (13) biden (177) Biden gaffes (21) Biff (1) big and small (5) Big Government sounds like a creepy stalker (10) Big Hollywood (1) Big Mike (1) bigotry (22) biking (160) bikini (18)… [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 6:41 pm by Geri Haight
Written by Susan Neuberger Weller In its recent decision in Christian Louboutin S.A. v. [read post]
21 May 2012, 1:18 am by Sam Murrant
Vicarious liability for sexually abusive priests Owen Bowcott, writing in the Guardian, summarises the positions of each side in a “test case” (currently in the Court of Appeal), in which the claimant seeks to make the trustees of a Catholic diocese vicariously liable for a priest’s abuse of the claimant. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 6:39 am by Rob Robinson
§1920 – bit.ly/HewRoz (Mark Sidoti) PhotoCop & The Red Light of Admissibility - bit.ly/H18QVF (Josh Gilliland) Pippins v. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 5:59 am by Ray Dowd
Christian Louboutin's Distinctive Red OutersolesIn Christian Louboutin SA v. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Owens, No Bueno, Buono: An Essay on Salazar v. [read post]
3 May 2010, 3:41 am by Russ Bensing
Owen, the 6th District reverses the grant of a civil protection order against a juvenile. [read post]
9 Sep 2009, 11:18 pm
  Ian Boyko, Canadian Federation of Students Expand fair dealing in line with the case of CHH v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 9:00 pm
You can also read the underlying court of appeals opinion in Hunter here.PD-956-08, Joe Christian Salazar v. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 53 Cal.3d 987 (1991), held, "[i]t is only reasonable therefore that as between the injured user and the one who places the product on the market the latter should bear the loss. [read post]