Search for: "Cobbs v. Grant" Results 81 - 100 of 111
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Oct 2013, 7:19 pm by Mary Dwyer
Cobb 13-138Issue: (1) Whether after Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 11:57 am by Patrick T. Ryan
Sears, Roebuck and Co. from the Seventh Circuit, and Cobb v. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 7:21 am by John Elwood
Cobb, 13-138; Sears, Roebuck and Company v. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 7:58 am by Andres
Items of clothing might be granted copyright protection if they have reached the stage in which they can be considered art (see Poe v Missing Persons). [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 1:50 am
Related posts:Publication: Raphael on The Anti-Suit Injunction The latest in a long line of private international...The Execution of the Anti-Suit Injunction I am grateful to Thomas Raphael, a barrister at...The Grant of an Anti-Suit Injunction in Connection with a Contract Governed by English Law NIGEL PETER ALBON (T/A N A CARRIAGE CO) v... [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 12:00 pm by Mary Pat Dwyer
Williams 13-587Issue: Whether the court of appeals exceeded its authority to grant a writ of habeas corpus when it completely disregarded and ignored this Court’s well-established precedent of Woodford v. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 12:35 pm by Kevin Russell and Charles Davis
(reversing habeas denial on ineffective assistance of counsel claim and granting relief from death sentence); and Zakrzewski v. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 8:19 am by J. Gordon Hylton
Forty-five years ago, the baseball world trained its attention on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and its impending decision in the case of Wisconsin v. [read post]
21 Feb 2021, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
  Mr Justice Tony O’Connor granted an ex-parte application by Mr Ganley’s lawyers permitting legal papers to be served outside the jurisdiction on CNN. [read post]
15 May 2023, 9:28 am by Tobin Admin
The Court of Appeals granted review of the choice of law issue and the question of whether the trial court properly applied the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Auld v. [read post]