Search for: "State v. C. G. B." Results 981 - 1000 of 2,345
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Nov 2015, 2:12 pm
 IVDP then appealed to the General Court on several grounds.The decisionIn Case T‑659/14 IVDP v OHIM (PORT CHARLOTTE) General Court held:“…it is clear that neither the provisions of Regulation No 491/2009, nor those of Regulation No 207/2009, state that the protection under the former must be construed as being exhaustive in the sense that that protection cannot be supplemented, beyond its particular scope, by another system of protection. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 2:59 am by INFORRM
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (2017 SCC 34). [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:34 am by Joseph C. McDaniel
(b) The filing of a petition under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or of an application under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, does not operate as a stay—(1) under subsection (a) of this section, of the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor;(2) under subsection (a)—(A) of the commencement or continuation of a civil action or proceeding—(i) for the establishment of paternity;(ii) for the… [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 11:05 am by Rebecca Tushnet
We also sometimes act irrationally b/c our reasoning is messed up. [read post]
11 Mar 2021, 2:29 am by Brian E. Barreira
For a Trustee to exercise any power, M.G.L. c. 203E § 815(b) requires that fiduciary duties must apply: “The exercise of a power shall be subject to the fiduciary duties prescribed by this article. [read post]
21 Apr 2007, 4:34 am
Section 3583(b)(2) of Title 18 authorizes a three-year term of supervised release for a Class C felony (Section 922(g)(1), felon in possession, is a Class C). [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 5:15 pm by Administrator
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects) Hak c. [read post]
20 Oct 2024, 4:01 am by Administrator
Case law has recognized the following non-exhaustive examples of badges of fraud: (a) the debtor had few remaining assets after the transfer; (b) the transfer was made to a non-arm’s length party; (c) the debtor was facing actual or potential liabilities, was insolvent, or was about to enter a risky undertaking; (d) the consideration for the transaction was grossly inadequate; (e) the debtor remained in possession of the property for their own use after the transfer; (f) the… [read post]