Search for: "State v. J. B." Results 901 - 920 of 6,787
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Apr 2024, 6:44 am by Unknown
Armistice Capital, LLC, March 27, 2024, Rochon, J.).Exchange Act Section 16(b) bars short-swing insider profits (and the court held that derivative plaintiffs do have Article III standing to bring Section 16(b) claims). [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 9:48 am by centerforartlaw
After sinking in the Adriatic Sea during its transportation, the statue remained on the seabed for around two millennia until, in the 1960s, Italian fishermen inadvertently fished it from the waters off the Marche region of Italy.[1] The J. [read post]
7 Jan 2018, 8:15 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
In 1996, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in Daniel J. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 4:11 am
Defending and indemnifying an employee being sued for damages for acts or omissions that occurred in the performance of official dutiesLarson v County of Seneca, 2009 NY Slip Op 50177(U), Decided on February 5, 2009, Supreme Court, Ontario County, Supreme Court Justice Craig J. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 11:06 am
Defending and indemnifying an employee being sued for damages for acts or omissions that occurred in the performance of official dutiesLarson v County of Seneca, 2009 NY Slip Op 50177(U), Decided on February 5, 2009, Supreme Court, Ontario County, Supreme Court Justice Craig J. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 2:58 pm
The State's Argument Regarding Computation of the Baze Mandate is Not on Appeal. .............................................................. 7 B. [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 8:25 am by Will Baude
No different conclusion obtains from United States v. [read post]
9 Nov 2007, 10:23 am
State of Indiana , a 16-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:William J. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 7:30 am
”Henry loved when he was in "shear mode"Claim "Interpretation"  - it is all about what you say and disclaimWith the old "Construction" heading now replaced with "Interpretation", Mr Justice Carr stated he would be applying"principles concerning normal interpretation and equivalents set out by the Supreme Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48, [2018] and by the Patents Court in Mylan v Yeda [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat)… [read post]