Search for: "Edwards v. Smith" Results 561 - 580 of 705
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Mar 2017, 8:19 am by Edward Smith
Growth Plate Fractures in Children Because your child’s bones are still growing, they are particularly vulnerable to a type of fracture known as a growth plate fracture. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:08 pm by Anna Christensen
Kaltag Tribal CouncilDocket: 09-960Issue(s): Whether Indian tribes in the State of Alaska have authority to initiate and adjudicate child custody proceedings involving a nonmember and then to compel the State to give full faith and credit to the decrees entered in those proceedings.Certiorari-Stage Documents:Opinion below (unpublished, 9th Circuit)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionPetitioner's replyAmicus brief of Edward Parks and Donielle TaylorPetitioners' supplemental… [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 3:30 am by INFORRM
On 13 March 2012, Bean J granted an injunction in the case of BUQ v HRE. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Whether you’re here in person or participating virtually from around the country, or even overseas, I thank you for joining us. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 5:23 pm by rainey Reitman
Documents provided by Edward Snowden and published in the Guardian and the Washington Post name nine U.S. companies—Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple—as participants in the NSA’s PRISM program. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 8:50 am by cdw
Charles Edward Moore, 2011 Cal. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 6:52 am by Ken
Tillman, 855 F.2d 394, 402 (7th Cir.1988) (Illinois law) (accusations of “racism”); Smith v. [read post]
20 Dec 2008, 3:00 am
gain upper hand in Blu-ray DRM battle (Ars Technica)   Africa South African Times report on state of African music, lack of support and protection (Afro-IP)   Australia Australian Copyright Tribunal: consumer valuation of copyright: Audio-Visual Copyright Society (t/a Screenrights) v Foxtel and Re PPCA (IPKat) (IP finance) Innovation patents in Australia. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 6:50 am by Brian Cordery
Nevertheless, having considered the chain of title and following Edwards Lifesciences v Cook Biotech [2009] EWHC 1340 (Pat), in which the court held that to make a valid claim for priority as successor in title it is necessary to be a successor in title at the time of filing the application, and KCI v Smith & Nephew [2010] EWHC 1487 (Pat), in which the court held that “successor in title” includes a person who was a recipient of the beneficial… [read post]