Search for: "Arnold v. State" Results 61 - 80 of 1,501
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Comment The Court of Appeal noted that it was unfortunate that the trial judge was not referred to Hallen v Brabantia. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 1:02 am by INFORRM
  Reserved Judgments Harcombe v Associated Newspapers, heard 3 to 7 and 10 to 11 July 2023 (Nicklin J) Smith v Backhouse, heard on 11 July 2023 (Asplin, Arnold and [read post]
12 Jul 2023, 6:05 am by Whitney Gravelle
The Band and Michigan have sued Enbridge in U.S. federal and state court. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 4:33 pm by Barry Barnett
A change to venue law frees state attorneys-general from involuntary transfers of antitrust actions from their home states to distant forums handling multi-district litigation involving the same subject matter. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 4:51 am by Jacob Wirz
  The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Arnold & Porter, Arnold & Porter’s clients, or the U.S. [read post]
15 May 2023, 1:53 am by INFORRM
On 10 May 2023, the Court of Appeal (Peter Jackson, Males and Arnold LJJ) heard an appeal in the case of Stoute v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [read post]
11 May 2023, 2:21 am by Aida Tohala (Bristows)
On 4 May 2023, a mere two weeks after the conclusion of the hearing, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Sandoz and Teva v BMS. [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 5:18 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
Similarly, Hacon HHJ stated in Teva v Novartis [2022] EWHC 2847 (Pat): “It seems that there was little or no interaction between Novartis’ three experts during the preparation of their evidence. [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 7:07 am by Eleonora Rosati
Standard International Management v EUIPO Case T-768/20 EU General Court (July 2022)Can a hotel in the United States use an EU trade mark? [read post]
8 Feb 2023, 7:36 am by INFORRM
On the same day, Chamberlain J heard an application in the case of VLM v LPB. [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 1:37 pm by Guest Author
The SEC’s Office of Economic Analysis’ 2009 Study on Section 404 states this point more explicitly: “Section 13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act requires companies to maintain effective ICFR, while Section 404 requires management to report on the effectiveness of ICFR. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 12:00 am by Jonathan Ross (Bristows)
  Arnold LJ agreed, and was fortified in his opinion by a similar ruling from the US Supreme Court in WesternGeco v Ion Geophysical. [read post]