Search for: "Christy, Appeal of" Results 521 - 540 of 1,176
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Oct 2011, 12:46 pm by Teri Rodriguez
Deshun Eubanks, Fort Worth Katherine "Katie" Fillmore, Austin Jo Anne Garcia, Pharr Aric Garza, Law Offices of Aric Garza, San Antonio Gilbert Gonzalez, Bexar County Courts at Law, San Antonio Zachary Hall, Third Court of Appeals, Austin Amber James, Atkins, Hollmann, Jones, Peacock, Lewis & Lyon, Odessa Shakeeb "Shak" Mir, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Dallas Courtney Barksdale Perez, The Stafford Law Firm, Dallas Anna Sankaran, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Houston Andrew… [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 6:55 am by Lyle Denniston
Second, Judge Ramos must now reopen the case in her Corpus Christi court, and fashion a specific legal remedy for that violation. [read post]
3 Jan 2007, 3:56 pm
  Christy Wizner had three other children in her first marriage. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 4:17 am
However, according to The Art Newspaper, in the context of other proceedings against Christie's, the Versailles court has stated that the royalty must be paid by sellers, without exception. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 5:30 pm by B.W. Barnett
This issue was recently addressed by the 13th District Court of Appeals in State v. [read post]
18 Oct 2014, 2:32 am by Lyle Denniston
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which temporarily blocked the trial judge’s ruling. [read post]
24 Aug 2013, 8:58 am by Mark S. Humphreys
This was made clear in the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals case styled, Northern County Mutual Insurance Company v. [read post]
6 May 2018, 5:32 am by Mark S. Humphreys
  The Courts of Appeals in Houston, Dallas, and Corpus Christi have well written opinions dealing with and upholding this exclusion. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 8:10 am by Brandon W. Barnett
The 13th District Court of Appeals (Corpus Christie), as it explained in its unpublished opinion in Harris v. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 6:11 am by Rachel, Law Clerk
Tsige: New Tort of “Intrusion Upon Seclusion” Recognized by Court of Appeal! [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 1:19 am
Township of Jackson, A-51/52-2008, the justices upheld an appeals court decision that struck down Jackson Township and Egg Harbor ordinances requiring developers to set aside land or make monetary payments. [read post]