Search for: "Powers v. Powers" Results 8321 - 8340 of 55,734
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Oct 2021, 8:21 am by CMS
For example, in Williams v Bayley 1 HL 200 a son forged his father’s signature to obtain promissory notes from a bank. [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 6:14 am
But that’s exactly what happened last week in Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 12:41 am by Florence Plisner (Bristows)
Given that the only authorised use of linagliptin is for the purpose specified in the claim (as part of a product containing excipients), this was a powerful factor in determining the circumstances were in place to ensure that linagliptin would be used for that purpose and that Boehringer knew it would be used exclusively for that purpose. [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 12:41 am by Florence Plisner (Bristows)
Given that the only authorised use of linagliptin is for the purpose specified in the claim (as part of a product containing excipients), this was a powerful factor in determining the circumstances were in place to ensure that linagliptin would be used for that purpose and that Boehringer knew it would be used exclusively for that purpose. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 5:06 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing [*3]the witnesses” (US Bank N.A. v Pierre, 189 AD3d 1309, 1310 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of… [read post]
24 Oct 2021, 9:05 pm by Jasmine Harris
” This concept may seem sufficiently broad to allow most plaintiffs’ lawyers recovery of fees, but it certainly does not have that valence after the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckhannon Board and Home Care v. [read post]
24 Oct 2021, 4:17 pm by INFORRM
Last Week in the Courts Judgement was handed down in Parkes v Hall and Ors [2021] EWHC 2824 (QB). [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 8:40 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Whether such state actors are the "deputized" potential plaintiffs or the court officials and jurists that wield the power of government at every stage of the litigation process, the chilling effect here derives from the bending of state power to such ends. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court ruling, finding it to have correctly determined that the District's discontinuation of IRMAA reimbursements violated the Act and thus had properly granted the Plaintiffs' petition. * The purpose of the moratorium statute was to tie retiree benefits to active employee benefits so that retirees could benefit from the collective bargaining power of the active employees. ** See Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ., Chenango… [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court ruling, finding it to have correctly determined that the District's discontinuation of IRMAA reimbursements violated the Act and thus had properly granted the Plaintiffs' petition. * The purpose of the moratorium statute was to tie retiree benefits to active employee benefits so that retirees could benefit from the collective bargaining power of the active employees. ** See Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ., Chenango… [read post]