Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 9761 - 9780
of 19,272
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Mar 2007, 9:42 am
" Mark D. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 12:05 pm
In this case (Estate of Presley v. [read post]
16 Mar 2008, 5:26 am
., who specializes in U.S. corporate immigration 2:41 Mark explains how the Internet gives him greater exposure to clients worldwide, and enhances communication and legal services across timezones 4:26 Mark projects some developments in immigration law, that expect increase trade across borders despite recent travel restrictions 5:34 The Internet allows movement of documents at a much more rapid rate, and the emergence of Canadian company Research in Motion's Blackberry… [read post]
27 Jun 2007, 2:26 pm
The Carmel decision marked the first time the state's highest court has ruled on current annexation law. [read post]
19 Nov 2022, 2:40 pm
From Doe v. [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 7:05 am
In a second ruling, the Court unanimously restored the power of the state of Hawaii to sell off lands it acquired on becoming a state, in the case of Hawaii v. [read post]
14 Jul 2022, 8:24 am
" Ledbetter v. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 1:46 pm
Under the previous controlling decision, Rapanos v. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 6:52 am
(Lyle summarized the state of play in those proceedings for this blog.) [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 12:41 pm
Engineered-v-Wuhu [read post]
24 Jun 2018, 4:00 am
The Charter does not directly apply here as no state action is being challenged, although the Charter may inform the development of the common law. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 6:13 pm
” United States v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 11:05 pm
United States (Gray on Claims) CAFC: Orion v Hyundai on novelty: Expanding the scope of a printed publication with oral testimony (Patently-O) District Court N D Illinois: False marking includes marking with expired patent number: ZOJO Solutions Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jan 2024, 3:29 am
The other two are APE TEES (EUIPO v Nowhere, C-337/22 P) and SHOPPI (Shopify v EUIPO, C-751/22 P, see here and here)). [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 9:02 am
Hatto; Hatto v. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 7:16 am
Representing Burton Enterprises, Inc.: Mark W. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 7:16 am
Representing Burton Enterprises, Inc.: Mark W. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 12:04 am
While, under CPL 270.20 (1) (b), a challenge for cause is permissible when a prospective juror "has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him [or her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial" (emphasis added), a sworn juror may be discharged as grossly unqualified over a defendant's objection "only when it becomes obvious that [the] particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an… [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 3:55 am
: Firehouse Restaurant Group, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 7:34 pm
Copyright © 2010 Mark Bennett. [read post]
