Search for: "Baker v. Speaks" Results 421 - 440 of 475
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jun 2009, 11:22 am by velvel
June 11, 2009Re: Irving Picard’s Three Percent Commission In The Madoff Case. [read post]
6 May 2009, 12:47 am
  Also included are the contents of the TRIG with the results of her own self-administered TRIG grief profile, including: (i) her thoughts as she considered each statement, (ii) her perceptions about what her overall scores mean, (iii) her reactions to taking it, (iv) why she rated each statement as she did, and (v) criticism of the scoring as an accurate portrayal of a grief response. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
"o o April 1, 2009 decision hereo o SCOTUS docket hereo o SCOTUSwiki hereo o Noted here: Baker Hostetler; Colorado Employment Law Blog; ConstangyArgued - Awaiting DecisionAT&T v. [read post]
29 Mar 2009, 6:54 pm
The Applicants also made a number of submissions regarding a reasonable apprehension of bias, based on Baker v. [read post]
29 Mar 2009, 6:50 pm
The Applicants also made a number of submissions regarding a reasonable apprehension of bias, based on Baker v. [read post]
22 Mar 2009, 6:53 am
Take, for instance, the Michigan v. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 7:25 am
Baker & McKenzie laid off 20 people, Foley Hoag 32, and Morgan Lewis 50. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
Court of First Instance rejects Lego’s appeal against OHIM’s Board of Appeals decision that Lego brick shape not registrable as a Community trade mark (Ars Technica) (Techdirt) OHIM opposition quality standards – the Office responds (IPKat) Charlie McCreevy puts forward proposal to reduce CTM fees by about 40% (Managing Intellectual Property) (Class 46) New protected geographical indications: French PGI Boeuf de Bazas for fresh meat and offal; Finnish PGI Kainuun… [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 6:54 am by Ann
Tom Hinchliffe was next to speak and did so on the recent case of Actavis v Merck which dealt with the question of whether the Court of Appeal could decide against its previous judgement in BMS v Baker Norton by which it should be bound. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 7:06 pm
Baker, No. 06-40757 Conviction for possessing, receiving, and distributing child pornography is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the sentence vacated and remanded, where: 1) a pretrial motion to suppress evidence was properly denied; but 2) two government exhibits that were the basis for the distribution conviction were improperly admitted as lacking respectively a proper foundation and proper authentication. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 4:23 am
I speak, of course, about Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]