Search for: "Stone Adoption Case"
Results 481 - 500
of 921
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Sep 2014, 8:07 am
Somebody called Dahlia Lithwick "deeply frivolous" for what she said about the Supreme Court case known as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," and I said: "I mean, if I were stoned I might be fascinated by the phrase 'deeply frivolous,' but I don't think Carney meant to divert us into contemplating an oxymoron. [read post]
11 Sep 2014, 7:56 am
To adopt a simple rule therefore is to make an open acknowledgement that the rule cannot be perfect because it will generate an unjust outcome in at least one case, and doubtless in more. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 6:26 am
No wishy-washy, dilly-dally for the ICD-10, no sir, the date is set in stone. [read post]
2 Sep 2014, 9:30 am
Yes, that is a mechanic gargoyle in the Stone Gallery. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 12:49 pm
This was certainly the case with common law. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 11:24 am
The substance and form of law adopted is important, because these prove the borders of the lawyer’s field. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 7:24 am
In June 2008, Dal-Tile bought a stone yard called Marble Point in Raleigh, North Carolina, formerly owned by Marco Izzi. [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 1:00 pm
In sum, Marty and Steve are right about future cases. [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 5:47 am
Employers seldom adopt this philosophy when settling lawsuits. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 5:56 am
* Another colour trade mark dispute: Langenscheidt vs Rosetta Stone (Yellow) These are challenging times for colour trade mark case law -- and therefore busy times for our colour TM specialist Birgit. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 2:07 pm
Argument This should have been an easy case. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 9:19 pm
The IPKat round-ups, starting today, are the classical two-birds-and-one-stone solution. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 2:27 pm
However, when industry competitors all adopt similar practices, none of them want to challenge each other in court (“those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”). [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 7:30 am
The applicant and the Government each filed written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.8. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 11:05 am
In today’s case (Gichuru v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 12:35 pm
We have found no cases decided since the adoption of the present constitution that assess the constitutionality of a jury verdict procured by the unanimous decision of thirteen qualified jurors. [read post]
19 May 2014, 11:18 am
It is rare that a distinguished federal appellate court invokes the “See No Evil, Hear No Evil” approach to deciding a case, but this is exactly what happened in a recent decision involving a North Carolina based tile and stone distributor. [read post]
19 May 2014, 5:57 am
It can adopt a “see-no-evil, hear-no-evil” approach, perhaps believing that tact best to preserving a valuable business relationship. [read post]
14 May 2014, 10:13 am
First, it adopted all of the prior CCPA decisions as binding precedent of the Court. [read post]
7 May 2014, 6:45 am
Stone v. [read post]
