Search for: "State v. C. G. B."
Results 421 - 440
of 2,316
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Nov 2014, 4:21 pm
The facts and domestic proceedings The case concerns the dismissal of a television journalist, Gábor Matúz, working for the State television company Magyar Televízió Zrt., after having revealed several censoring interventions by one of his superiors. [read post]
3 Nov 2020, 11:49 am
C) Who did Judge Murray Klein lose to (tricky question). [read post]
16 Mar 2022, 7:39 pm
RUSSIAN FEDERATION)___________ALLÉGATIONS DE GÉNOCIDE AU TITRE DE LA CONVENTION POURLA PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE(UKRAINE c. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 12:52 pm
The case is United States v. [read post]
5 May 2023, 9:32 am
Plaintiff also relies on United States v. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 5:57 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 1:55 pm
Patent No. 8,177,449• Count V for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. [read post]
23 Aug 2009, 3:44 pm
See also State v. [read post]
24 Apr 2016, 7:00 am
Some express the viewpoint that the case reached the wrong outcome, either because the Court (a) misunderstood the facts relating to the invention or patent, (b) misapplied existing § 101 principles, or (c) both. [read post]
10 Jan 2015, 7:23 am
C. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 6:33 pm
See,e .g., United States v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 6:18 am
§§ 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I), 1030(g); see WEC Carolina Energy Solutions LLC v. [read post]
10 May 2013, 4:42 am
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), and (h). [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 7:40 am
at *7 (quoting Goro v. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 7:40 am
at *7 (quoting Goro v. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 5:56 am
On 31 March, the review officer wrote a ‘minded to’ letter stating that she was minded to find Mr G intentionally homeless due to non-payment of rent, frivolously spending his capital from the sale of his house and voluntarily leaving the rented accommodation. [read post]
7 Jul 2009, 1:25 pm
United States, 24 Cl. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 3:06 pm
The statutory presumption requires the State to initially “prove by a preponderance of evidence” four essential facts, namely, (a) a transfer; (b) without adequate consideration; (c) of a material portion of the decedent’s estate; and (d) made within three years of the decedent’s death. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the Town terminating the plaintiff [Employee] based on the findings and recommendation of a disciplinary hearing officer, Supreme Court [a] denied the Town's motion to dismiss the Employee petition; [b] granted Employee's petition to the extent of annulling the penalty imposed; and [c] remitting the matter to the Town for the imposition of a less severe penalty. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the Town terminating the plaintiff [Employee] based on the findings and recommendation of a disciplinary hearing officer, Supreme Court [a] denied the Town's motion to dismiss the Employee petition; [b] granted Employee's petition to the extent of annulling the penalty imposed; and [c] remitting the matter to the Town for the imposition of a less severe penalty. [read post]
