Search for: "State v. K. K. C."
Results 681 - 700
of 2,291
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2009, 4:00 am
C. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 2:52 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 2:25 pm
Code § 1028A(c). [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 7:41 am
Armour & Co., 190 S.C. 170, 2 S.E.2d 681 (1939) (sickness after eating "oil sausages" a/k/a "potted meat);Boylston v. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 5:10 am
’ Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801(c). [read post]
3 May 2017, 3:47 am
C. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 10:06 am
The City of Seattle is represented in the case by K&L Gates attorneys Jeffrey C. [read post]
18 May 2012, 8:43 am
" Answers: (a) Groucho; (b) Mitt; (c) Mitt; (d) Groucho; (e) Mitt; (f) Groucho; (g) Mitt; (h) Groucho; (i) Mitt; (j) Groucho; (k) Groucho; (l) Mitt; (m) Mitt; (n) Groucho; (o) Groucho; (p) Mitt; (q) Mitt; (r) Groucho; (s) Mitt; (t) Groucho; (u) Groucho; (v) Mitt Groucho [read post]
6 May 2019, 6:14 am
Sebastiampillai v Parr. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 9:05 pm
Harper, Boston University School of Law; Allison K. [read post]
4 May 2009, 6:26 am
State, No. 97,652 (Atchison)K.S.A. 60-1507 appeal (petition for review)Jean K. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 4:08 pm
He gave Article 23 DPD a very narrow reading, contrary to CJEU decisions such as Case C–168/00 Leitner v TUI Deutschland GmbH [2002] ECR I–1631 (ECLI:EU:C:2002:163; ECJ, 12 March 2002), which held that compensation for “damage” must include both material and non-material damage, that is, both actual damage and distress (see also Case C-63/09 Walz v Clickair SA [2010] ECR I 4239 (ECLI:EU:C:2010:251; CJEU, 6 May… [read post]
23 Jul 2007, 8:57 am
by Lawrence C. [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 3:28 am
The more interesting part of the decision concerns the plaintiffs’ direct, contract claim alleging that the issuance of the treasury shares without payment violated the operating agreement’s provision stating that the Class C treasury units “will only be issued as Class C Units, unless purchased/assigned to Class A Member(s). [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 11:14 am
In his first letter, the mediator stated his recollection that the parties intended to “split” the 401(k) plan, grant one hundred percent of the ESOP to HUSBAND, and “split” the “future retirement disbursement . . . 50/50 between the parties. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 8:58 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
19 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
It is easiest to deal with the numerous arguments raised by the [patent proprietor] by considering them in relation to the chronological sequence of the relevant events, the three important ones being: (a) the execution of the Technology Transfer Agreement (TTA) dated 14 April 2000; (b) the dissolution of the original opponent, Aventis R&T, on 31 May 2003; and (c) the filing of the notice of appeal and statement of grounds of appeal in the name of Aventis R&T on 4 November 2005 and… [read post]
20 Mar 2020, 1:58 am
Broadcom (in support of neither party) and in Thryv v. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 11:28 am
Further, Note 2(c) defines the term "parts of general use" for the entire tariff schedule as including articles of Heading 8302.As an aside, the United States raised an interesting issue with respect to Note 1(k). [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 11:53 am
See Barnes v. [read post]
