Search for: "State v. Phillips"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 2,874
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Apr 2013, 7:52 am
Affirmed.Case Name: DOUGLAS HOWARD CRAFT v. [read post]
17 May 2013, 9:02 am
Phillips, Attorney General; John D. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 10:07 am
Case Name: MERIT ENERGY COMPANY v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 9:32 am
Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 1:20 pm
Case Name: TONY SERNA v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:43 am
Lords Phillips and Brown (with whom Lord Rodger agrees) dissent and hold that because the appellants would have been lawfully detained the Secretary of State is not liable to them in false imprisonment: [319]-[334], [343]-[360]. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 9:42 am
For publication opinions today (3): Heather Parks and Jimmy Phillips v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 12:11 pm
Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. [read post]
11 Dec 2015, 5:24 am
Todd Gryczewski v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:46 pm
From Young v. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 8:47 am
Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 10:28 am
EEOC and Golan v. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 9:39 am
On Wednesday 9 October Deenish Benjamin and Deochan Ganga v The State of Trinidad and Tobago will be heard by Dame Heather Hallett and Lords Phillips, Kerr, Clarke and Wilson. [read post]
4 Nov 2007, 9:00 pm
At 10 a.m, the Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in CSX Transportation v. [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 1:54 pm
(Eugene Volokh) An interesting and influential passage, most recently quoted by Judge Posner in United States v. [read post]
14 Mar 2012, 10:19 am
” Phillips v. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 2:17 pm
Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al. (14-1513); and Stryker Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 3:42 am
It’s also a busy week in the Privy Council – on Monday 31 October Saint Aubin Limitee v Alain Jean Francois Doger de Speville (Mauritius) will be heard over one day by Lords Phillips, Brown, Mance, Kerr and Wilson. [read post]
28 Nov 2016, 4:02 pm
Phillips v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
In [*2]addition, a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in itself, does not give rise to a private cause of action against an attorney or law firm (see Cohen v Kachroo, 115 AD3d 512, 513; DeStaso v Condon Resnick, LLP, 90 AD3d 809, 814; Kallman v Krupnick, 67 AD3d 1093, 1096; Weintraub v Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim, & Ballon, 172 AD2d 254, 254). [read post]
