Search for: "Givens v. Givens"
Results 501 - 520
of 75,697
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 May 2012, 3:19 am
“As a result of the decision in Pirtek (UK) Ltd. v Joinplace Ltd & others [2010] EWHC 1641 (Ch), when considering the enforceability of a post-termination restrictive covenant against competition in a franchise agreement, there are now two things that have to be considered: the franchisor’s interest in having his goodwill in the franchise protected as a matter of common law; and, the franchisor’s interest in having his know-how and the assistance he has given… [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 11:44 am
Particularly given the whole Dalkon Shield debacle.The sentence of three years probation and ninety days of community service for doing otherwise seems pretty light. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 10:09 am
Given the plethora of semi-comptent (at best) immigration law practitioners out there, anyone should thank their lucky stars when Latham agrees to take your case (presumably, pro bono) and brief and argue the Ninth Circuit appeal.So be happy. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 6:04 am
The state won 100 percent of the time, which isn’t surprising given that only the state was allowed to present any evidence and all of that evidence was submitted secretly to the judge. [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 5:55 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 11:38 am
” Aronson v. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 6:57 am
AUTO - SUM - LATE NOTICE - PREJUDICE REQUIREMENT Bhatt v. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 10:34 am
State v. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 2:09 am
The only judgment is given by Lord Leggatt. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 7:23 am
The case, Dean v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 2:05 pm
The slip-and-fall injury case of Sorrels v. [read post]
25 Nov 2007, 11:04 am
But the world seems to have overlooked the implications of Thomson v. [read post]
10 Feb 2016, 2:28 am
Lord Reed and Lord Hodge stated that no consideration had been given to the possibility of personal protective equipment and the precautions taken, in the form of advice to wear appropriate footwear, did not specify what might be appropriate. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 10:25 pm
(Linder v. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 8:44 am
Pulse Electronics, which was consolidated with Stryker Corp. v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 6:35 am
Power Co. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 10:57 am
The decision on which state's laws apply to a given case is an important one. [read post]
2 Aug 2007, 7:43 am
US v. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 9:59 am
"[T]he facts that Liang had gotten married, given birth to one child, and was pregnant with another since her previous hearing do not constitute grounds to reopen the proceedings. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 9:34 am
The State claims the circuit court erred in ruling that the challenged portion of Xiong's statement was inadmissible because it was given [...] [read post]
