Search for: "Grant v. Sullivan"
Results 641 - 660
of 1,009
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Apr 2011, 11:58 am
The settlement in Keepseagle v. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 1:41 pm
Which Sullivan reads on March 16th, one day after the notification deadline.At which point Sullivan says that Milton wasn't his attorney, Rita wasn't authorized to accept service on his behalf, and that since he wasn't formally notified by March 16th, he's automatically granted tenure.Creative legal mind. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 8:21 am
Justice lawyers said in the notice (PDF) in Keepseagle v. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 12:07 pm
OTHELLO SULLIVAN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 1:19 pm
Judge Emmet Sullivan of Washington's federal trial court asked the Justice Department to submit court papers addressing why he should not grant the plaintiffs' request for $60.8 million for their work in steering the litigation to a $760 million settlement. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 8:03 am
DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING THE DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. [read post]
26 Mar 2011, 9:03 pm
However, the Court now has an ideal opportunity to limit to this rule in Maples v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 1:21 pm
Schleicher v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 1:15 pm
The Supreme Court has granted review in Maples v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 7:49 pm
From this week’s edition: The lede this week, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Maples v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 8:20 am
The cert petition in Maples v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 6:58 am
The Supreme Court granted cert to Maples v. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 7:06 am
More recently, in Grant v. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 4:59 am
– FCAFC decision in Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd v Overliese (IP Whiteboard) Caribbean Carribean IP: Establishing an arbitral tribunal for the region (IP Watch) Canada Petition launched in opposition to CETA (Michael Geist) Clerical error in the Intellectual Property Office: Repligen Corp. v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 5:00 am
The Third Circuit, sitting en banc, heard oral argument last Tuesday, February 23, 2011, in Sullivan v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 4:16 pm
In a Californian case, Moreno v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 2:06 am
Times v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm
Problem areas include what “unaware” means, the exclusion of electronic communications such as emails and the very broad common law definition of “publication” which has not changed since Duke of Brunswick v Hamer (1849) 14 QB 185. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 8:26 am
The district court, relying on this Court’s decision in Streets v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:52 am
In Bonnard v Perryman, Lord Chief Justice Coleridge in the Court of Appeal held that the … importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunctions. [read post]
