Search for: "Hinds v. Hinds"
Results 81 - 100
of 209
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Feb 2015, 11:42 am
In a 3-1 decision on February 4, 2015 in Cohen v. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 9:51 am
Hinds, Seventh Circuit: Appellant's case was remanded for resentencing because the district court improperly imposed two special conditions of supervised release. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 7:38 pm
This would appear to be a strange result (and goes against eg Case T-152/07 Lange Uren v OHIM). [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 10:22 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Habeas Opinions Body: AC35043, AC35081 - Hinds v. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm
In her January 31, 2014 decision in Morille-Hinds v. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 11:51 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Employment Opinions Body: AC35265 - Hinde v. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 9:01 am
Hinds. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 2:05 pm
., Jr. v. [read post]
19 May 2013, 9:12 am
Livshits v. [read post]
11 May 2013, 1:38 pm
In that case Hinds J.A. adopted the analysis of Master Horn in Lee v. [read post]
14 Apr 2013, 8:02 pm
United States v. [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 11:30 am
Brown v. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 5:50 pm
Judgment Released: March 29, 2012 Link to Judgment Under Rule 20, the determination of whether there is a “genuine issue requiring a trial” is a legal determination and the standard of review is correctness. [read post]
5 Nov 2012, 3:00 am
Allison Grant at the Plain Dealer reported last week that Eaton Corp. is trying to get Hinds Circuit Judge Jeff Weill recused from the Eaton v. [read post]
16 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
On Friday a Hinds County jury rendered a $100,000 verdict Friday in Marble v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 9:07 am
I wrote in 2011 about the $23 million verdict in Hinds County in the Archey v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 4:00 am
On June 29 a Hinds County jury returned a $2.5 million verdict in Cheeks v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 4:00 am
Here is the Court's opinion in Knox v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 4:00 am
Here is the Court's opinion in Knox v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 4:00 am
Here is the Court's opinion in Knox v. [read post]
