Search for: "Givens v. Givens"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 67,471
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Oct 2020, 6:26 am
In Employment Division v. [read post]
1 May 2017, 9:49 am
In Skye v. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 10:02 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 3:33 am
Regina (McGetrick) v Parole Board and another [2012] EWHC 882 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 114 “When considering and making its substantive recommendation on the question of the early release or recall of prisoners on licence following a reference to it by the Secretary of State for Justice, the Parole Board was ‘dealing with the case’ within the meaning of section 239(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and was therefore required to consider all the documents given to… [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 9:30 am
Alliance for Water Efficiency v. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 4:15 pm
Given this concern for safety, Facebook will remove all fake accounts. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 11:51 am
As I said a couple of years ago, given this fact, no panel -- much less Judges Gould, Clifton and Bybee -- are going to care much about what you say or any alleged errors at trial. [read post]
12 Jan 2007, 3:14 pm
Especially given that the partner they hired both had his office next door to the attorney litigating the case on behalf of the defendant and admitted to reviewing information about the case while he was with the firm. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 7:20 am
Tags: constitutional law, recusals, Supreme Court Related posts Wyeth v. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 7:25 am
Beshear and Roberts v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 4:24 am
State v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 2:23 am
Realchemie Nederland BV v Bayer CropScience AG (Case C-406/09); [2011] WLR (D) 350 “Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p1) applied to the recognition and enforcement of a decision of a court or tribunal that contained an order to pay a fine in order to ensure compliance with a judgment given in a civil and commercial matter. [read post]
29 Aug 2024, 7:07 am
NIPNLG, Aug. 29, 2024 " IMPORTANT UPDATE: PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRELIMINARILY APPROVED J.O.P. v. [read post]
25 Sep 2010, 10:13 am
Some believe this decision is contrary to the ECJ ruling in Copad SA v Dior (Case C-59/08, 23 April 2009), where a "trademark's prestige" and "the aura of luxury" were found to be "essential" to brand protection. [read post]
25 Sep 2010, 10:13 am
Some believe this decision is contrary to the ECJ ruling in Copad SA v Dior (Case C-59/08, 23 April 2009), where a "trademark's prestige" and "the aura of luxury" were found to be "essential" to brand protection. [read post]
31 Oct 2020, 11:58 am
Palma, MD., et al. v. [read post]
25 May 2012, 1:26 pm
Soppet v. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 9:58 am
Supreme Court in Miranda v. [read post]
31 Dec 2014, 11:42 am
In the recent case of Borden Dairy v. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 11:36 am
”PPC Broadband, Inc. v. [read post]
