Search for: "SMITH v. SMITH" Results 9721 - 9740 of 14,628
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jun 2017, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
Bright v Town In the first judgment of the year, on 13 February 2017, the defendant obtained a rare order for summary judgment on Associate Judge Smith’s appraisal of the strength of qualified privilege and incurable defects in the plaintiff’s malice plea. [read post]
13 Jul 2007, 4:07 pm
Cassens, et al    Eastern District of Michigan at DetroitWIRE FRAUDJULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 3:16 am by Matrix Law
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 10/03/23) The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter, heard 14th June 2022 Unger and another (in substitution… [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 12:43 pm by Kirk Jenkins
 The plaintiff had a fundamental problem, the Court pointed out; under Smith v. [read post]
30 Jan 2019, 8:42 am
This morning, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L v Huawei Technologies Co. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 1:45 pm
The USA Freedom Act will likely affect EFF’s ongoing litigation against the NSA, including Smith v. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 11:03 am by Nadia Kayyali
Related Issues: NSA SpyingPATRIOT ActRelated Cases: Smith v. [read post]
19 Oct 2021, 6:54 am by John Jascob
" This requirement was given a broad reading by the Court in 2006 in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 12:05 pm
A claim of double jeopardy is sometimes encountered in efforts to suppress a disciplinary action in situations were the charges reflect the same acts or omissions that were the subject of counseling memoranda or performance evaluations.The courts have rejected this theory.** In Patterson v Smith, 53 NY2d 98, the Court of Appeals said that including charges concerning performance that were addressed in a counseling memorandum was not “double jeopardy. [read post]