Search for: "Bui v. State"
Results 6241 - 6260
of 9,826
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2024, 8:39 am
A.J.Z. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 12:26 pm
This same position was reiterated in Subash Kumar Mawani v. [read post]
31 May 2010, 8:23 am
The Court of Appeals didn’t buy either argument. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 7:46 am
Fedn. of the Blind v. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 9:01 am
March 27, 2024) (refusing remand to state court) Mora v. [read post]
10 Nov 2006, 1:29 pm
I am opposed to the proposed rules on three grounds -- a misunderstanding of the concept of ethics (see Bates et. al. v State Bar of Arizona); the rules themselves will not likely be upheld at the first legal challenge to them; and there is clearly a misunderstanding of the meaning of marketing for lawyers and the long-term effects of Bates in serving both law firms and, most significantly, clients. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 11:00 am
The court in Priore v. [read post]
1 Mar 2023, 5:09 pm
(Heckman v. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 3:28 am
The petitioner’s allegations, if true, would not establish that “the management of the entity is unable or unwilling to reasonably permit or promote the stated purpose of the entity to be realized or achieved, or [that] continuing the entity is financially unfeasible” (Matter of 1545 Ocean Ave., LLC, 72 AD3d 121, 131; see Barone v Sowers, 128 AD3d 484; Doyle v Icon, LLC, 103 AD3d 440). [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 3:28 am
The petitioner’s allegations, if true, would not establish that “the management of the entity is unable or unwilling to reasonably permit or promote the stated purpose of the entity to be realized or achieved, or [that] continuing the entity is financially unfeasible” (Matter of 1545 Ocean Ave., LLC, 72 AD3d 121, 131; see Barone v Sowers, 128 AD3d 484; Doyle v Icon, LLC, 103 AD3d 440). [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 3:28 am
The petitioner’s allegations, if true, would not establish that “the management of the entity is unable or unwilling to reasonably permit or promote the stated purpose of the entity to be realized or achieved, or [that] continuing the entity is financially unfeasible” (Matter of 1545 Ocean Ave., LLC, 72 AD3d 121, 131; see Barone v Sowers, 128 AD3d 484; Doyle v Icon, LLC, 103 AD3d 440). [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 11:51 am
Schutz Container Systems, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Aug 2024, 11:33 am
State-licensed insurance producers with an operating presence at a physical office within the United States, and authorized by a State, and subject to supervision by a State’s insurance commissioner or a similar official or agency. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
(IP finance) The UK IP Office issues a Virgin trademark ruling that contrasts the Israel approach (IP Factor) EWHC (Pat): Article 27 (to prevent parallel proceedings in different member states) requires flexible approach to meaning of ‘same parties’: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (MAB), Mölnlycke Health care Limited (MUK) v. [read post]
9 Feb 2020, 4:05 pm
Last Week in the Courts On 4 to 7 February 2020 Warby J heard the trial in the case of Sube v News Group Newspapers. [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 1:19 pm
Mayflower Cambridge Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1975) 30 P & CR 28 was a planning case, concerning hotel use. [read post]
8 Nov 2015, 4:08 pm
United States The Panopticon blog reports on the argument in the US Supreme Court case of Spokeo Inc v Thomas Robins, a case which concerns the issue as to whether there should be compensation for “digital injury” where there is no financial loss. [read post]
28 Aug 2009, 3:07 am
U.S. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 3:00 am
Schweitzer (pictured) in Jain v. [read post]
6 Jan 2022, 12:21 am
The claimant said that by stating in their trade mark application their bona fide intention to use the mark, they caused the public to believe they were associated with the claimant. [read post]
