Search for: "Does 1-3 v. Chandler"
Results 41 - 60
of 116
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jun 2010, 8:38 pm
Chandler v. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 1:58 pm
Owens, 1 S.W.3d 315, 319-20 (Tex. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:14 pm
Chandler, No. 07-1583 A conviction and sentence pursuant to a guilty plea to drug related charges are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the conversion of cash to a drug quantity; 2) a failure to apply the 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) factors; 3) ineffective assistance of counsel; and 4) a retroactive revision to sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine. [read post]
22 Dec 2017, 2:29 pm
" Chandler v. [read post]
29 Mar 2020, 4:13 pm
Chandler, of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati — the former Delaware Chancellor — argued that Section 102(b)(1) has always been interpreted broadly to mean “for the management of the business”, even when that involves “intra-corporate” matters such as stock sales. [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 10:19 pm
Partnership v. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 2:24 pm
The omission was clearly an intra vires error but, in my view, that does not mean it falls within the slip rule. [read post]
25 May 2015, 4:00 am
[1] See Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 6:04 am
Chancellor Chandler made it quite clear that Delaware law simply does not support this distinction. [read post]
27 Sep 2023, 2:53 pm
Oct. 15, 2021) (quoting the decision in Chandler v. [read post]
28 Feb 2009, 1:23 pm
In Gantler v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 8:33 am
” S.B. 1070 § 1. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 4:00 am
Section 253.1(5) provides that the section must not be construed as limiting the tribunal’s ability at the request of a party has been held to derive from the 1989 Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Chandler v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 12:11 pm
The Claimant was given permission to appeal on the application and interpretation of s.3(1). [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 2:41 pm
To have Article III standing, a plaintiff must have suffered (1) a concrete, particularized “injury in fact” (2) that bears a causal connection to the alleged misconduct and (3) that a favorable court decision is likely to redress. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 1:09 pm
The appellate court held that probable cause does not require law enforcement `to show that the operator was in fact under the influence'; Arizona v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 1:09 pm
The appellate court held that probable cause does not require law enforcement `to show that the operator was in fact under the influence’; Arizona v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 10:47 am
§ 1125(a)(3). [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 4:30 am
July 1, 2015). [read post]
3 Nov 2019, 4:17 pm
The Press Gazette has coverage as does INFORRM. [read post]
