Search for: "Long v. Long" Results 901 - 920 of 66,296
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Nov 2011, 4:30 am by Jim Dedman
  Often, we scour the reported opinions, sometimes chancing across decades old opinions chronicling long ago cases argued by long dead attorneys. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 9:42 am
Glaister and others v Appleby-in-Westmorland Town Council [2009] EWCA Civ 1325; [2009] WLR (D) 359 Â "A local council did not owe a duty of care to claimants to arrange public liability insurance to cover the risk of injury occurring at a long-established horse fair taking place on land part of which it owned, nor to ensure [...] [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 10:28 pm
On 18 January 2011 the Fourth Section of the Court of Human Rights handed down its long awaited judgment in the case of MGN v United Kingdom (Case No. 39401/04 [2011] ECHR 66). [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 2:31 am
O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur SA Court of Justice of the European Union "While English law allowed for the substitution of one defendant for another outside the limitation period as long as the action was brought within that period, European Union law did not allow the producer of allegedly defective goods to be substituted outside that period, [...] [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 11:38 am by Kristin E. Hickman
At long last (for those of us who watch for these decisions), the Supreme Court has issued its decision in West Virginia v. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 5:53 pm by Hadar Aviram
District Court Judge Claudia Wilken awarded Ashker v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 4:26 am by Lawrence Solum
Lesley Wexler (University of Illinois College of Law) has posted Litigating the Long War on Terror: The Role of Al-Aulaqi v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 11:29 pm by Nathan
And for as long as we’ve been in the game, the bulk of federal criminal practice has been devoted to dealing with the Guidelines. [read post]
27 Jun 2024, 2:38 pm by Maribeth Meluch
In an eight-to-one decision this month, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks in Starbucks Corp. v. [read post]