Search for: "State v. Bui"
Results 4221 - 4240
of 9,823
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2015, 8:37 pm
The latter point has attracted a great deal of commentary to date, but some of that commentary has overlooked important details, so please don’t forget to read Section V at the end. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 6:40 am
State v. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 5:12 am
The 2d Circuit in Swartz v. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 4:33 am
Indeed, Vogue was right and in fact today the Court of Appeal issued its decision in Fenty v Arcadia, confirming Birss J's judgment and holding that "the sale by Topshop of the t-shirt amounted to passing off. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 1:26 am
Eventually, the AG states that an anti-suit injunction cannot be qualified as a ground of non-recognition for a violation of public policy under article V (2)(b) NYC (paras 160 ff). [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 8:57 pm
This is a claim articulated most fully (so far) by Justice Scalia in his brief concurrence in Ricci v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 1:34 pm
” Welchel v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 1:06 pm
Maggio did not start this stinking business of buying public policy and judicial decisions. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 12:04 pm
By Peter Montine The case of United States v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 8:57 am
Case citation: Florida Van Rentals, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 7:01 am
Josh is a huge fan of the 5-4 Bates v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 1:56 pm
Hargrove, et al. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 11:36 pm
Lexion Med., LLC v. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 8:00 pm
Except when it doesn’t.United States v. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 10:05 am
” On the fiftieth anniversary of King’s “I Have a Dream” speech (August 2013), a new round of articles appeared, making the same complaints that, yes, you could license the speech, or buy a copy on DVD (the Atlantic noted that, at the time, Amazon currently had a copy for $13.41), but shouldn’t it be free? [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 7:55 am
In McKinnis v. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 4:52 am
U.S. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2015, 9:08 pm
The brief is a frontal attack on the Florida ethical ban on solicitation, arguing that it fails to deal with the one problem for which the Court has given states some leeway to regulate: quid pro quo corruption — that is, buying government favors with donated money. [read post]
17 Jan 2015, 5:06 pm
District Judge Rowlands found all the claims made out and identified the three main claims as follows: The damp and cold to the living room, which meant the tenant had to buy additional covers to sit underneath. [read post]
