Search for: "Holmes v. Holmes" Results 461 - 480 of 2,139
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Apr 2019, 3:56 pm by Abbie Peterson
Holmes, 193 P.2d 821 (Colo. 2008) in circumstances where the action remains timely even given an early accrual date. [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 10:16 am by John Jascob
The public interest favors a stay to prevent Balwani from benefitting from civil discovery in his criminal case, and the parties and court should not be burdened by civil discovery while the criminal case is pending, the government argues (SEC v. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 2:27 pm by scanner1
Holmes DA 18-0548 2019 MT 94N Criminal – Burglary State v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 6:00 am by Sandy Levinson
For the symposium on Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum's new book, The Company They Keep: How Partisan Divisions Came to the Supreme Court (Oxford University Press, 2019). [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 8:56 am by Ronald Collins
Felix Frankfurter was zealous in guarding Holmes’ reputation after Holmes’ death in 1935 and decided that only the official biographer he anointed in 1939 to carry out the task, Mark Howe of the Harvard Law School, would have access to Holmes’ papers. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 11:56 am by Gritsforbreakfast
I'm certainly glad this aspect is being highlighted, but Grits wishes the bill went farther.The ill-considered codification of Holmes v. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 8:59 am by David M. McLain
Holmes, which ruled that homeowners or homeowners associations are not entitled to prejudgment interest in situations where the measure of damages is in the form of cost of repairs not yet made. [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 5:09 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Plaintiff Deidre Holmes Clark is an attorney who formerly worked for defendant law firm, Allen and Overy LLP (“A&O”). [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 10:00 am by Dan Ernst
WebbBank of the United States v. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 8:02 am by Andrew Hamm
He was not able to avoid the issue in Buck v. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 2:29 am
Since the Board of Appeal decided to take a different view from the one adopted in previous decisions, in relation to the reputation of the earlier mark, it should have provided an explicit statement of its reasons for doing so.This looks familiarPhoto: Christian HolmérAs a result, the Court found that the Board of Appeal’s assessment as regards the application of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 to be "vitiated by several errors or lacunae, relating to the… [read post]