Search for: "True v True" Results 6021 - 6040 of 33,941
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jun 2023, 10:44 am by Amy Howe
’” In a solo dissent, Thomas criticized what he characterized as the majority’s “surprising and misplaced reliance on New York Times v. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 12:08 am
In Milton Keynes Borough Council v (1) Michael Nulty, Deceased (2) Wing Bat Security Ltd (Formerly DBI Support Services Ltd) and (3) National Insurance & Guarantee Corporation Ltd : National Insurance & Guarantee Corporation Ltd v (1) Michael Nulty, Deceased (2) Milton Keynes Borough Council (2011) EWHC 2847 (TCC), two parallel actions, the High Court was required to determine the cause of two fires at a recycling centre, and the extent of the liability of the National… [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 2:10 am by Scott A. McKeown
Lockwood Reexamination Gripe Goes Nowhere As discussed last week, the case of Lockwood v. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 3:12 pm
Making a formal pact with federal prosecutors has many advantages, as demonstrated in United States v. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 11:56 am by Ken Chan
On the rumored eve of the iPhone 5 release, I spotted this case–Jethro Magat v. [read post]
14 May 2007, 7:44 am
Against a backdrop of global concern over counterfeit goods and artistic frauds, Forged Realities, a recent art show in Beijing, took on the question of real v. fake. [read post]
20 Mar 2023, 5:21 am by CMS
Fancourt J’s interpretation of the principle in Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd ([2003] UKHL 66) (“Marcic“) was overly broad. [read post]
31 Mar 2013, 5:48 am by Clara Altman
“Out of Order” is a gift shop bauble, and its title might as well refer to how disorganized and meandering it is.Read the full review here.Abbe Smith, a law professor at Georgetown, reviews two books that "put a damper on the celebration" of the 50th anniversary of Gideon v. [read post]
3 May 2022, 5:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" Here, however, the Appellate Division, "accepting the facts as alleged to be true, and according the [Plaintiff] the benefit of every possible favorable inference," opined that Plaintiff's complaint "fails to state a cause of action alleging constructive discharge, as the allegations are either vague and conclusory" or involve events that allegedly occurred after the Plaintiff had resigned from DOT. [read post]