Search for: "HUNTER v. HUNTER" Results 601 - 620 of 1,752
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 May 2014, 8:58 am
” Now, anyone who knows anything about patent judges will know that they love experts who give their evidence in a moderate and balanced fashion and are willing to concede points where it is reasonable to do so – see for example Mr Justice Arnold’s comments about Professor Hunter in GUK v Yeda. [read post]
28 Sep 2022, 1:17 pm
Members of the group have discussed their skills as hunters and claim they will use these skills to protect Dan Dow, and ‘protect our own. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 3:52 am by Frank Cranmer
The authors also pointed out that, at the time of writing, R v Hunter, MacKinder and Atkinson [1974] 1 QB 95, [1973] 3 All ER 286 CA appeared to be the first example since the late nineteenth century of a prosecution for the offence. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 6:20 am by Derek Black
The complaint, in Araujo v Bryant, points out that the Mississippi Constitution requires schools to be under the supervision... [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 4:56 am by Derek Black
In September, Superior Court Justice Brian Tucker granted most of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, in City of Dover v. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 8:07 am by Derek Black
Seeking to enforce the will of Colorado voters, who amended their state constitution to guarantee reasonable school funding, citizens from around Colorado filed a lawsuit, Dwyer v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 5:42 pm
    Well, today the Supremes moved in the opposite direction, holding in Arias v. [read post]
1 Sep 2013, 8:13 am by Howard Friedman
 The court dismissed plaintiff's RUIPA challenge because he failed to provide evidence that the jail received federal funds.In Hunter v. [read post]
18 Jan 2009, 7:43 am
Hunter, No. 96-4259, 1998 WL 887289, at *3 (4th Cir. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 6:42 am by INFORRM
The Court of Appeal’s guidance given in JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 42 in respect of anonymity orders was held to apply equally to orders applied for under section 39. [read post]