Search for: "Jacobs v. State"
Results 1041 - 1060
of 1,850
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Aug 2009, 3:05 am
(See prior related posting.)In Jacobs v. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 4:00 am
Further, in US v. [read post]
13 Jul 2013, 10:00 pm
The recent decision of Justice Fuerst in R v. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 3:54 am
Jacob Baldinger has an analysis at Subscript Law. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:00 am
See [Jacob A. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 12:07 pm
TianRui v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
In Gomez v. [read post]
31 Dec 2022, 9:03 am
That meant that when Dobbs v. [read post]
30 Dec 2024, 6:00 am
In Al-Hamim v. [read post]
8 May 2007, 9:02 am
The Court has asked for the views of the United States in three additional cases - No. 06-923, Metlife v. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 4:30 am
TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 955 (11th Cir. 2009) (existence of license asserted as an affirmative defense to copyright infringement claim); Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 10:09 am
The Colorado Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in Miller v. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 5:31 am
Jacobs of Greenwire profiles John Korzen, the Wake Forest law professor who will make his oral argument debut at the Court next week representing the respondents in CTS Corp. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 7:31 am
In Horne v. [read post]
12 Apr 2023, 5:01 am
Vitulli “breached a duty owed to the shareholder independent of any duty owing to the corporation wronged” (Abrams v Donati, 66 NY2d 951, 953; see Kramer v Meridian Capital Group, LLC, 201 AD3d 909, 911; Jacobs v Cartalemi, 156 AD3d 605, 608; Patterson v Calogero, 150 AD3d 1131, 1133). [read post]
20 Nov 2017, 9:57 am
However, as in civil procedure applicable in the United States, parties may move to compel disclosure if the opposing party refuses or fails to produce documents. [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 8:35 pm
In today’s case (Jacobs v. [read post]
4 Jan 2007, 8:26 pm
State, 2003 OK CR 11, 71 P.3d 30, and Salazar v. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 10:00 pm
Certainly this reasoning is supported by the authorities cited by Floyd J at [85]-[89], to the effect that even though an invention is obvious to try, it is nonetheless obvious only if it is “more-or-less self-evident that what is being tested ought to work” (Lord Justice Jacob in St Gobain v Fusion Provida [2005] EWCA Civ 177 [35]) and there must be a “fair expectation of success” (Lord Hoffmann in Conor v Angiotech [2008] UKHL 49 [42].) [read post]
21 Dec 2016, 12:48 am
The authority cited in support of this proposition is Pozzoli SPA v BDMO [2007] EWCA Civ 588, in which Jacob LJ stated at para 10: "I would add this about permission to appeal in patent cases generally. [read post]
