Search for: "Grant v. Parker"
Results 381 - 400
of 731
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Sep 2012, 10:07 am
In Parker v. [read post]
26 Dec 2008, 3:35 am
U.S. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 6:48 pm
Toth v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 8:50 pm
In Parker, Warden v. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 6:53 am
Department of Health and Human Services under a grant award totaling $20,944,200 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 6:10 am
In Parker v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 1:26 pm
CaldwellDocket: 10-622Issue(s): (1) Whether a binding agreement among multiple states and private companies is immunized from antitrust scrutiny under the state-action immunity doctrine of Parker v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 12:55 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCriminal Practice
Rule 4 Invoked in Habeas Denial; Applicant's Own Submissions Demonstrated Lack of Merit
Parker v. [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 4:47 am
”‘ (Phillips-Smith Specialty Retail Group II, LP., v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimp, LLP, 265 AD2d at 210.) [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 12:14 pm
While Raymond argues that this case is controlled by Parker v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 2:24 am
It is also clear from yesterday’s report in the Independent that Mr Justice Kenneth Parker continued the interim injunction in the case ZXC v BNM until trial or final order and that this case was not a super-injunction. [read post]
26 Aug 2021, 4:16 pm
Lancaster, 569 U.S. 351, 365–68 (2013); Parker v. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 2:19 am
(5) Is the undertaking given by Mr Parker on behalf of HSLLP unenforceable on the ground of public policy under the doctrine of restraint of trade? [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 4:23 am
” Cameron-Grant v. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 10:55 pm
R (JG and MB ) v. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 7:23 pm
In addition, contrary to the respondents' contentions, the order appealed from is appealable as of right, as it decided motions made upon notice and affected a substantial right of the parties (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v]; Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 7:23 pm
In addition, contrary to the respondents' contentions, the order appealed from is appealable as of right, as it decided motions made upon notice and affected a substantial right of the parties (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v]; Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 6:03 am
Which is why we have the doctrine of "judicial estoppel," which means that you cannot take a legal position in one proceeding and then take the opposite legal position in another proceeding.The case is DeRosa v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:44 pm
City of New London and New London Development Company, 843 A2d 500 (Conn. 2004), cert. granted, 125 S. [read post]
