Search for: "Lee v. LEE" Results 5841 - 5860 of 7,978
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jun 2011, 4:01 am
Today's the day the Court of Justice of the European Union gave judgment in Case C-462/09 Stichting de Thuiskopie v Opus Supplies Deutschland GmbH, Mijndert van der Lee and Hananja van der Lee, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (the Dutch Supreme Court). [read post]
25 Mar 2022, 5:48 am
Liu, Dechert LLP, on Friday, March 18, 2022 Tags: Class actions, Compliance and disclosure interpretation, Cryptocurrency, Foreign issuers, International governance, Securities fraud, Securities litigation Special Committee Report Posted by Gregory V. [read post]
18 Jul 2008, 10:28 am
Named as defendants in the complaint, Tricia Rohloff and Lee Anderson responded and alleged numerous affirmative defenses. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 12:03 pm by sydniemery
Shannon’s article Prescribing a Balance: The Texas Legislative Responses to Sell v. [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 12:16 pm by Gideon Alper
It was about a man and woman who weren’t married, Lee Marvin and Michele Marvin (Michelle used Lee Marvin’s last name anyway). [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 12:06 am
First off, let's deal with a bit of news from the ongoing trench warfare between the entity formerly known as the Scruggs Katrina Group and State Farm known as McIntosh v. [read post]
29 Sep 2019, 2:46 pm by Giles Peaker
The Circuit Judge took into account that under a secure tenancy a landlord would have an implied right of access to carry out works to avoid injury ( McAuley v Bristol CC (1992) QB 134 and Lee v Leeds CC (2002) 1 WLR 1488 ). [read post]
24 Mar 2024, 8:50 am by Nedim Malovic
This decision followed the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Hamilton International Ltd v. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
There I argued (among other things) that the amicus brief of Senators Hawley, Cruz, and Lee is peculiar in that it is almost entirely directed against the undue burden test adopted by SCOTUS in Planned Parenthood v. [read post]