Search for: "Sellers v. Henry" Results 61 - 79 of 79
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Oct 2010, 2:14 pm by Roshonda Scipio
Administrative LawKD4882 .P76 2010The regulatory enterprise : government, regulation, and legitimacy / Tony Prosser.Prosser, Tony.Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2010.AfricaHQ1798.5 .S89 2010Beyond women's empowerment in Africa : exploring dislocation and agency / Elinami Veraeli Swai.Swai, Elinami Veraeli.New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.Banks and BankingHG1811 .D38 2010Banking on the future : the fall and rise of central banking / Howard Davies, David Green.Davies, H. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am by Bexis
North America, Inc., 971 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2009), but dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted after it turned out that the defendant was an intermediate seller, not a true manufacturer (that makes a difference in the Third Restatement, but it’s not important here).Finally, the Third Circuit got fed up with the issue remaining undecided, and after trying unsuccessfully to get the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to accept a certified question, took the metaphorical bull by the horns and… [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 1:21 am
The case before the seven-judge panel asked whether Henry V should be held criminally responsible for the mass execution of French prisoners of war after the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. [read post]
28 Jan 2010, 11:51 pm
The judge sided with Moody's and S&P, who said they were not liable under the Securities Act of 1933 as either underwriters or sellers. [read post]
5 Jul 2009, 9:21 pm
My  tax preparer colleague, Bruce the Tax Guy, has responded to my recent post titled CPAs v. [read post]
1 Mar 2009, 12:57 am
Selden and the decision in question is Columbia Motor Car Co. v. [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 11:31 pm
" Link: Financial PostLink: Drug and Device Law BlogLink: Henry V (Wikipedia) [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Henry , No. 07-4578, 07-4587 Denial of defendants' motions to dismiss their indictment related to marijuana growing is reversed, and their convictions and sentences vacated and remanded where the continuance of trial for 103 days could not be excluded from defendant's speedy trial clock, which caused the total delay in defendant's case to exceed the seventy days allowed by the Speedy Trial Act. [read post]