Search for: "J. v. K."
Results 21 - 40
of 2,623
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Apr 2024, 6:37 pm
U.S. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
One of the hallmarks of PCCE is that it brings together academics, regulators, and industry professionals, and allows us to have candid conversations about corporate misconduct and the ways in which we can all work together to improve compliance. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 8:59 am
King v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 11:05 am
The trial was recently the center of TV series “The People v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 3:52 pm
Schmid and V. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 10:08 am
The limits of peer review ultimately make it a poor proxy for the validity tests posed by Rules 702 and 703. [read post]
7 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Posted by Brian V. [read post]
7 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Posted by Brian V. [read post]
4 Apr 2024, 6:16 am
Greene v. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 9:05 pm
These states follow the logic of Marvin v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 6:39 am
As Edelman J explained in Crawley Investments Pty Ltd v Elman [2014] WASC 233, [45], the Western Australian rules have derived from Chancery practice, whereas the approach under the historical Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) pt 10—underpinning leading authorities like Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552—was quite different. [read post]
21 Mar 2024, 5:00 am
In the case of Calpin v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 4:04 pm
From Honeyfund.com inc v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 5:01 am
Co. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:05 pm
New Subpart 1600 of Regulation S-K New Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K sets forth specialized disclosure requirements applicable to SPACs regarding the sponsor, potential conflicts of interest and dilution, among other things. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:22 am
(Accent Delight), an offshore company with Dmitry Rybolovlev as the ultimate beneficial owner, v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 4:30 pm
In New York, obtaining a family court order of protection involves specific requirements for both temporary and final orders. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 8:59 am
Smotherman, Reading Between the Wines: Granholm v. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 7:16 pm
In the case of In re Danna T., the Suffolk County Family Court deliberated over a petition filed by E.O., the maternal grandmother of G.D., seeking visitation rights. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm
I dissent from the Commission’s denial of a petition to amend Rule 202.5(e), our so-called gag rule.[1] This de facto rule follows from the Commission’s enforcement of its policy, adopted in 1972, that it will not “permit a defendant or respondent to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the allegations in the complaint or order for proceedings. [read post]
