Search for: "Cox v. Cox" Results 641 - 660 of 1,599
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Sep 2013, 9:28 am by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 111365 (SD NY, Aug. 7, 2013), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit by a Muslim inmate who complained that he could not attend Friday Jumu'ah services while he was in disciplinary confinement.In Cox v. [read post]
2 Dec 2024, 5:44 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The plaintiffs’ claims regarding the consequences and damages flowing from the defendants’ alleged failure to request that a title company provide a title report by a certain date are conclusory and speculative (see May Dock Lane, LLC v Harras Bloom & Archer, LLP, 222 AD3d at 637; 126 Main St., LLC v Kriegsman, 218 AD3d 524, 525; Sierra Holdings, LLC v Phillips, Weiner, Quinn, Artura & Cox, 112 AD3d 909, 910). [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 10:28 am
[it] was controlled by Cox Communications. . . . [read post]
21 Nov 2007, 8:34 am
A hedge fund also filed an access proposal at Reliant Energy, but the Texas-based company sought a court ruling that it was not bound by the AFSCME v. [read post]
8 May 2008, 4:00 pm
Cox, Inc.), and the petitioner has filed a supplemental brief concerning the Brown v. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 7:00 am by Will Baude
Two months ago I wrote about a set of cases pending at the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: Dalmazzi, Cox, & Ortiz v. [read post]
13 Oct 2018, 4:00 am by Anushka Limaye, Victoria Clark
In other ECHR news, Chinmayi Sharma summarized the court’s ruling in Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 10:13 am by Eric Goldman
Cox case, the court says that simply making works available does not constitute distribution. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 6:41 am by Eric Goldman
Interpreting what the word “found” means in 17 USC 512(g). * In the Matter of Subpoena of Internet Subscribers of Cox Communications, LLC and Coxcom LLC, 2023 WL 6907124 (D. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 12:16 pm
 In today's ruling (here), noted by the Kat's learned friend Hugo Cox on the 1709 Blog here, Arnold J said "no" -- it wasn't necessary and would anyway cause delay. [read post]