Search for: "US v. Anthony Patterson"
Results 21 - 34
of 34
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
December 21, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
21 Dec 2009, 10:57 am
— Imelda V. [read post]
31 Jul 2009, 7:21 am
It says: The underlying litigation in this case began in 1995 when Anthony Patterson, a member of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith in Philadelphia, filed an action in state court against church leaders alleging that they had looted millions of dollars from the church’s bank accounts. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 3:33 pm
., Schlesinger v. [read post]
22 Sep 2008, 11:23 am
Waggoner v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 5:02 pm
Anthony Falzone writes about the court's decision to stop publication of The Harry Potter Lexicon, ruling against Fair Use. [read post]
1 May 2008, 6:34 am
Patterson on the Rowling v. [read post]
17 Apr 2008, 1:11 am
What I mean is, you remember yesterday where I asked a bunch of questions about that story where Mike Moore said he got a text message from Lon Stallings debunking Judge Lackey's testimony in the Jones v. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 5:41 am
Rowling and Warner Bros. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2008, 11:00 pm
Rowling v. [read post]
12 Mar 2008, 6:24 pm
Rowling v. [read post]
12 Mar 2008, 2:40 pm
Patterson in courtroom 24 of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 12:22 am
Click here to see a copy of Blake v. [read post]
8 Dec 2007, 7:17 am
Below you will find the UCP affiliates for Ohio: UCP of Greater Cleveland 10011 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44106 Phone: (216) 791-8363 Fax: (216) 721-3372 E-mail: sdean@ucpcleveland.org Web: http://www.ucpcleveland.org UCP of Cincinnati 3601 Victory Parkway Cincinnati, OH 45229 Phone: (513) 221-4606 Fax: (513) 872-5262 E-mail: ucpcrend@one.net Web: http://www.ucp-cincinnati.org UCP of Central Ohio 440 Industrial Mile Road Columbus, OH 43228-2411 Phone: (614) 279-0109; (800) 670-9146 (Toll Free)… [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 2:50 pm
In making these decisions, the Court has effectively said "it's alright to expand mandatory arbitration, because courts will guard individuals against unfair arbitration clauses using traditional rules of contract law. [read post]
