Search for: "Abbott v. Second Judicial District Court" Results 81 - 100 of 151
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Moving to the second question, however, the appellate court found the use of an addendum was inadequate under CEQA. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 7:15 am by Joy Waltemath
“Without a doubt, the questions involved in this action are serious and must be resolved by the proper authority,” the district court wrote, adding, “the Supreme Court will soon address these issues and provide much needed clarity for the lower courts” (Texas v. [read post]
19 Jun 2011, 10:13 pm
Cir. 2010); Abbott Labs. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 7:34 am by MOTP
HOLLAND, Appellee On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2012-41959 Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 9:04 am
Never Too Late 224 [Week ending 2 Jun] Following CJEU Syed ruling, Swedish Supreme Court establishes criminal liability through warehouse storage of copyright infringing goods | Opposition proceedings before the EUIPO: a lesson from the General Court | Sprint Electric v Potamianos: High Court finds an implied copyright assignment based on equitable title | Henry Carr J refuses Abbott's mitral valve preliminary injunction | Not quite… [read post]
20 Mar 2024, 12:56 pm by Ryan Scoville
Fourth, the Supreme Court arguably embraced a similar view in the 1968 case of Zschernig v. [read post]
The Court also held that the California Supreme Court in Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 8:52 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Abbott, Diane Kindermann, Glen Hansen, Brian Russell and Dan Cucchi Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2015 Annual CEQA update. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 12:55 pm by Joel R. Brandes
Robertson (1997) 1998 SLT 468, 1997 GWD 21-1000, Inner House of the Court of Session (Second Division) (Scotland); Dickson v. [read post]
16 Jun 2019, 11:07 am
Katfriend Axel Ferrazzini writes about the recent decision of the Higher District Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Düsseldorf in Unwired Planet v Huawei (22 March 2019, Case-No. [read post]
20 Jan 2009, 9:26 am
 “Because finality is a jurisdictional requirement to obtaining judicial review under the APA, the district court correctly dismissed Fairbanks’ action. [read post]