Search for: "Strauss v. Strauss"
Results 501 - 520
of 618
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Aug 2009, 5:50 am
It seems unlikely that such oppositions will be filed.CCF previously sought to intervene in Strauss v. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 11:36 am
Levi Strauss & Co., 104 F.R.D. 103 (S.D.N.Y.1985). [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 9:55 am
From an extended examination of Chadwick LJ’s judgment in Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546, which expressly raises ‘fairness’ on the basis of relevant conduct as the criterea by which share of interest should be assessed, in the absence of express agreement, and Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, which appears to limit ‘fairness’ and expressly concerned shares in a property in joint names, where Oxley v Hiscock concerned a… [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 3:00 am
Fiser v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 8:49 am
07/27/09 The Recorder (source: ADF Alliance Alert):Carlos Moreno stood alone in May when he dissented from the decision upholding Proposition 8 [Strauss v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 3:00 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2009, 12:58 pm
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld partner Tom Goldstein discusses the decisions. [read post]
21 Jul 2009, 12:44 pm
/**/ In Ashcroft v. [read post]
18 Jul 2009, 7:31 am
This post is by my colleagues Mark Schonfeld, John Sturc, Barry Goldsmith, Eric Creizman, Jennifer Colgan Halter, Akita St. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 9:22 am
" In Strauss v. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 5:11 am
Nguyen v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 5:33 am
In November, ProtectMarriage.com / Yes on 8 opposed Liberty Counsel's motion to intervene on behalf of CCF in Strauss v. [read post]
28 Jun 2009, 10:55 pm
”Ashcroft v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 5:30 am
He recommends filing a state court action to challenge the California Supreme Court's holding, under Strauss v. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 9:40 am
Until June 6th, Bishop et al v. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:06 pm
The docket shows that the petition was filed on June 5th.06/09/09 statement from Shannon Minter, legal director, National Center for Lesbian Rights:The document must be titled petition for rehearing because that is the only procedural vehicle for requesting any modification, but we are simply asking the Court to correct a factual error, not to rehear the entire case.06/11/09 The Bay Area Reporter:"It is a very significant mistake," said Minter. [read post]
3 Jun 2009, 6:04 am
06/02/09 The California Constitution:Although I continue to update reaction to the Strauss ruling, I want to highlight this post by appellate practitioner Steve Mayer. [read post]
29 May 2009, 9:12 am
I continue to update my previous posts on Strauss v. [read post]
28 May 2009, 4:30 am
05/28/09 WordinEdgewise:An unidentified "legal reader" of Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish explains why he or she thinks Strauss v. [read post]
28 May 2009, 1:42 am
The California Supreme Court's decision in Strauss v. [read post]
