Search for: "Fast v. Fast" Results 4021 - 4040 of 6,850
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jan 2012, 5:43 pm by Mark Edwards
I’d have been out the door and on the plane so fast I’d probably have injured myself. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 8:45 am by Samantha Fry
Leon fast-tracks suit for final argument. [read post]
17 May 2017, 6:27 am by Eugene Volokh
But it does look like some person (or perhaps some set of people) was trying to pull a fast one on the legal system, in many courthouses. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 12:18 am by INFORRM
The claimant sought declaratory relief and damages after he had been removed from a fast food outlet and detained by the police. [read post]
31 May 2011, 12:19 am by Graeme Hall
In the courts: Shoesmith, R (on the application of) v OFSTED & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 642 (27 May 2011): Direction under Education Act 1996 to remove Director of Children’s Services was unlawful as did not follow fair procedure – See posts by Obiter J and Adam Wagner Bashir, R (on the application of) v The Independent Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 1108 (Admin): Prison rules conviction for failure to provide urine sample quashed as Muslim prisoner legitimately… [read post]
1 May 2015, 10:00 am by M. Devin Whitt
And because of this general feeling and inherent goal of retaining everything possible in a divorce, a divorce can get ugly–and get ugly fast. [read post]
1 Nov 2015, 10:48 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Fast forward 25 years later, and this ability to identify someone with a piece of ancillary information is much greater. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 9:51 am by Ronald Collins
Division in the ranks Fast-forward nearly three decades: the news broke in the Washington Post on June 19, 1998. [read post]
18 Apr 2020, 11:01 am by Eric Goldman
This is your reminder that 512(h) subpoenas routinely unmask individuals engaged in lawful activity–without any material court oversight unless the alleged infringer challenges the subpoena. 512(h)’s fast-track to unmasking has not aged well; it’s now a troubling historical anachronism. * Williams v. 3DExport, 2020 WL 532418 (E.D. [read post]