Search for: "Aske v. Aske" Results 961 - 980 of 65,392
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Feb 2008, 8:29 am
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order stating that, on the Court’s own motion, it will hold a hearing on several issues, including: Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. [...] [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 1:20 pm
Make a motion to represent yourself, then ask for a lawyer, then ask for another lawyer, then ask for a different lawyer, etc. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 4:05 am by Howard Friedman
Supreme Court an Application For A Stay of An Injunction (full text) in American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 2:59 pm
The government must honor its promise not to disclose the names of individuals asked to disclose certain information – at least for the present Harbatkin v New York City Dept. of Records & Info. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 2:00 pm by JA Hodnicki
& Joshua Wright (George Mason Univ.) ask Will the 2010 Merger Guidelines Survive the DOJ's Complaint in U.S. v. [read post]
19 May 2020, 12:00 am by D Daniel Sokol
Stephan Waldheim Bird asks Huawei v ZTE Five Years After—Luxembourg Locuta Causa Finita? [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 9:40 pm
In the case of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Limited [2010] UKSC 58 the Supreme Court were asked to consider the effect of a complicated tax avoidance scheme designed to create a loss for tax purposes for the taxpayer without it suffering a genuine economic loss. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 2:55 am by sally
Carey v HSBC Bank plc and Associated Cases Queen’s Bench Division “A creditor could satisfy its duty under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to give a debtor, when asked in writing, a copy of the running-account regulated credit agreement and other documents referred to therein, by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement, which might be from sources other than the signed version. [read post]
4 May 2010, 9:59 pm by Patent Docs
In its order, the Court certified six questions relating to its inequitable conduct jurisprudence, asking the parties and amici to provide their views on the standards of materiality and intent and the "balancing" test first enunciated in Kingsdown Medical Consutants Inc. v. [read post]