Search for: "v. JONES" Results 6881 - 6900 of 9,905
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Apr 2011, 7:51 am by Kali Borkoski
  The Los Angeles Times, ABCnews, WSJ Washington Wire, Reuters, the ABA Journal, and Dow Jones Newswire also have coverage of the Justices’ testimony. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 9:20 am by Dwight Sullivan
UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT’S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 2:19 am by sally
Jones v First-tier Tribunal [2011] EWCA Civ 400; [2011] WLR (D) 131 “An offence of inflicting grevious bodily harm, contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, was a ‘crime of violence’ for the purposes of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 2:42 pm by Michael Erdman
At the very end of 2009, the Fourth Circuit ruled in Nemet Chevrolet v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 2:42 pm by Michael Erdman
At the very end of 2009, the Fourth Circuit ruled in Nemet Chevrolet v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 4:02 am
Accordingly, Judge Gleeson, citing the Appellate Division’s ruling in Jones v Westchester County, 644 NY2d 640, granted the State’s motion to summarily dismiss this branch of Sanni’s complaint. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 1:39 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Tedjame- Mortty, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim B1 (05 April 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Jones v First Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2011] EWCA Civ 400 (12 April 2011) Macpherson v Wise [2011] EWCA Civ 399 (12 April 2011) Court of Appeal (Administrative Court) Rahman, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWHC 944 (Admin) (31 March 2011) Source: www.bailii.org [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 11:13 am by Roshonda Scipio
March 2011 Law Library Acquisitions ListAfricaKQC772 .K5 2010Statutory recognition of customary land rights in Africa : an investigation into best practices for lawmaking and implementation / by Rachael S. [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 3:11 pm
In the Second Circuit, which includes New York, the factors for the test for confusion is that as laid down in the Polaroid Corp v Polarad Elecs. [read post]