Search for: "Friday v. Friday" Results 8121 - 8140 of 12,754
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jan 2012, 2:01 am by Eric S. Solotoff
On Friday, I blogged on the judicial estoppel aspect of the Romano case decided last week by the Appellate Division. [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
In the Courts On Friday 13 January 2012 the Administrative Court (Toulson LJ, Sweeney and Sharp JJ) heard a remarkable application in the case of R (on the application of Associated Newspapers) v Leveson Inquiry. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 7:09 pm
When you have an appellate case that's resolved on Friday the Thirteenth, it's invariably going to unlucky for one or the other of the participants. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 2:00 pm
As the lone dissenter, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer recognizes the potential unreliability of eyewitness testimony in Perry v. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 10:12 am by Lyle Denniston
  That case is United States v. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 7:12 am by Marissa Miller
New Hampshire and CompuCredit Corp. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 3:27 am by Russ Bensing
  That all came crashing down when the Supreme Court decided State v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 2:05 pm by Steve Hall
The California Supreme Court opinion in People v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 12:12 pm
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Knox v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 10:14 am
On Friday, the Telegraph reported that Apple had sent a cease-and-desist letter to InIcons ordering it to stop making, marketing and selling the figure. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 6:29 am by Kiran Bhat
At this blog, Kali has our Petitions to Watch for this Friday’s conference. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 12:03 am by Giesela Ruehl
WORKSHOP (with coffee & tea) 15:15 Life-cycle of a contract: a case study on the CESL in legal practice Martin Schmidt-Kessel 17:00 End of the first conference day 19:00 Evening programme and dinner Friday, 10 February 2012 Chair: Anna Veneziano V. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 1:57 pm by Employment Services
Horton was instructed to rescind the MAA or revise it to clarify that employees do not have to waive their right to pursue a class or collective action.The NLRB further held that the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]