Search for: "Courts v. Campbell"
Results 421 - 440
of 2,898
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jan 2010, 12:48 am
On January 21, the Tax Court issued a decision in the case of Albert Campbell, who received a relator’s share of $8.75 million in 2003 for two qui tam suits against Lockheed Martin Corp. [read post]
21 Sep 2014, 6:45 am
District Court for the Northern District of Florida, in a Section 1071 review of the TTAB's decision in Sandshaker Lounge and Package Store, LLC v. [read post]
23 May 2014, 11:44 am
Campbell-Ponstingle v. [read post]
12 Jan 2007, 3:34 pm
Campbell that went up to the U.S. [read post]
11 Jan 2007, 9:04 am
Campbell that went up to the U.S. [read post]
1 Aug 2008, 6:33 pm
Supreme Court's statement in State Farm v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 6:01 am
The copy of the opinion in Weitzner v. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 4:11 pm
The article uses the twentieth anniversary of United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 10:17 am
On January 22, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in State v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 4:30 am
Instead, the Campbell Court adopted the reasoning of Pafford v. [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 10:11 am
Co. v. [read post]
4 May 2016, 6:00 am
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 3:30 am
For those of you who care why, here’s the opinion in Campbell-Ewald Company v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 12:00 am
Here is the abstract: In Campbell and Cosans v the United Kingdom (1982), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) determined that a view must ‘attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance’ to be considered a religion or belief under Article 9 of the Convention. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 4:25 pm
It was conceded on behalf of Mr Bukovsky that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) had held that the words ‘to make’ as found in the Protection of Children Act 1978, included ‘causing to exist; to produce by action; to bring about’ and that the section 1(1)(a) offence could therefore be committed by acts such as downloading and caching images. [read post]
21 Nov 2006, 1:13 am
In Kalany v. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 5:36 pm
In People v Campbell (2011 NY Slip Op 00813 [4th Dept 2/11/11]) the Court held that it was error to summarily deny a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, based on the contention that the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney had failed to inform him of potentially exculpatory evidence, i.e., that before the murder an inmate at a state prison had advised the District Attorney that he had information concerning a plot to murder the… [read post]
30 Dec 2008, 10:39 am
Campbell. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 5:00 am
”The Court then elaborated on the one-to-one ratio in a non-constitutional case, Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 10:44 am
In Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
