Search for: "He v. Holder"
Results 5521 - 5540
of 5,733
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2008, 11:58 am
Vernor v. [read post]
20 May 2008, 7:49 am
" But, the Second Circuit concluded, "[t]he present claim--that a debt security was fraudulently marketed by an insolvent enterprise--does not enforce the rights of the Certificate holders as holders, and therefore it does not fall within § 1332(d)(9)(C). [read post]
20 May 2008, 2:09 am
" He applied this anti-chaos rule to an argument by my GW Law colleague John Duffy that, if accepted by the courts, could invalidate patents worth hundreds of billions of dollars to their holders. [read post]
15 May 2008, 3:28 am
(See United States Trust Co. v. [read post]
14 May 2008, 9:10 pm
Imagine Geoffrey Holder, with his commanding voice, arguing before Judge Douglas Ginsburg. [read post]
14 May 2008, 9:00 pm
Imagine Geoffrey Holder, with his commanding voice, arguing before Judge Douglas Ginsburg. [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:22 pm
Here it is. *** West London Man is going to Lords this Saturday to watch England v New Zealand. [read post]
9 May 2008, 11:30 am
Nelson v. [read post]
8 May 2008, 2:36 pm
" By this, he likely meant that the constitution must adapt to the times. [read post]
5 May 2008, 3:25 pm
(Keeping with one of today’s themes, Umphrey mentioned cited Entergy v. [read post]
5 May 2008, 4:30 am
The complaint alleged that the uncle took exclusive control of the partnerships' books, records, properties and assets; that he misappropriated certain assets including rental income for his own benefit; and that he failed to wind up the partnerships' affairs after his sister died and failed to provide a final accounting for each of the partnerships. [read post]
4th DCA: If girlfriend shoots and kills boyfriend, does she get to keep the jointly titled accounts?
3 May 2008, 3:10 pm
Julia v. [read post]
1 May 2008, 11:21 am
He took the same negligent marketing allegations that the court had thrown out in Hamilton and gave them a new name - "public nuisance. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 11:21 am
In a decision regarding an order to show cause in the case, called Nosek v. [read post]
13 Apr 2008, 11:52 pm
[18] He further asserts that the bank has an obligation to provide services to all those who qualify under federal law. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 8:05 am
[Federal Register: April 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 68)][Rules and Regulations][Page 18944-18956]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr08ap08-3] --------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 214 and 274a [DHS No. [read post]
6 Apr 2008, 11:50 am
" Rather it would be an ICP.- Zeran v. [read post]
29 Mar 2008, 5:28 pm
Simpson v. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 11:17 am
However, the court declined to decide whether the assignee is a holder in due course, because he was not a named party in the matter. [read post]
