Search for: "Doe v. Phillips"
Results 401 - 420
of 1,846
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Mar 2012, 6:51 am
" Quoting CyberSource Corp. v. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 11:24 am
In Phillip & Angie C ex rel AC v. [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 4:05 pm
Phillips does not satisfy the “active clinical aspect” of the VMMA. [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 10:13 am
Windsor and Obergefell v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 2:00 am
If they were, does it matter? [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 6:08 am
Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to raise her Judiciary Law § 487 claim in her motion for sanctions in that prior action, which was denied (Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v Platt, Sup Ct, NY County, March 28, 2018, Schecter, J., index No. 155985/14; see Doscher v Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 148 AD3d 523, 523-24 [1st Dept 2017]). [read post]
26 Oct 2018, 1:17 am
The appellants' arguments can be summarized as follows:[...]V. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 9:28 am
PHILLIPS: No. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 2:27 am
Does the sale and use of AdWords infringe the rights of brand owners who have registered those words as trade marks in Europe? [read post]
26 Feb 2009, 4:11 am
The Wood case demonstrates an exception to this rule: The power to appoint does not support a claim of the power to remove an incumbent when removal from the position in question is provided for by statute.William J. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 7:14 am
The Wood case demonstrates an exception to this rule: The power to appoint does not support a claim of the power to remove an incumbent when removal from the position in question is provided for by statute.William J. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 9:01 pm
Co. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 5:45 am
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in one of the most contentious cases of the term, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 9:36 am
Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Phillip J. [read post]
4 Jul 2011, 8:53 am
In R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal; R (MR Pakistan) (FC) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) the Supreme Court determined an important question of principle regarding the nature of the relationship between the Upper Tribunal and the High Court, namely the circumstances in which decisions of the Upper Tribunal are open to challenge in judicial review proceedings. [read post]
24 May 2018, 9:01 pm
In Kilbourn v. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 11:24 am
As I see it, Florence is really a follow-up to Atwater v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 7:10 am
As Marilyn Stowe points out in this detailed post on the Gow v Grant case:"Scottish law does not equate cohabitation with marriage. [read post]
5 May 2011, 1:47 am
As the sub-heading of Gill Phillips’ Guardian piece puts it a “Two tier system is being created as rich male stars take advantage of privacy protection“. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 10:19 am
Readers interested in learning about another Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act case currently before the Supreme Court, Federal Republic of Germany v. [read post]
