Search for: "State v. Items of Property"
Results 1101 - 1120
of 2,923
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Nov 2013, 12:28 pm
District Court for the Eastern District of New York 2012); State v. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 1:27 pm
ShareAs expected, Wednesday’s argument in Jack Daniel’s Properties v VIP Products showcased the justices grappling with line-drawing. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 8:48 am
Moustakis v Christie’s, Inc. 2009 NY Slip Op 09543 Decided on December 22, 2009 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 9:21 am
State v. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 7:00 am
This topic is discussed in the case, Muniz v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 10:51 am
The policy must be filed with the state. [read post]
17 Oct 2012, 4:56 am
As I’ve noted in prior posts, when government agents seize someone’s property as part of a criminal investigation, the property owner can file a motion for return of property under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 8:09 am
There are several items to take away from this case. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 6:30 am
He wrote, “For the BASF trial, we had prepared a display board that showed there were 220 Galaxy companies in existence in the midwestern United States. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 4:30 am
After reading the recent case of Hammond v. [read post]
12 Oct 2012, 4:59 am
State, supra (quoting Trimble v. [read post]
30 Jul 2016, 9:10 am
v. [read post]
24 Apr 2022, 9:45 am
Two items get filed. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 10:00 pm
Thus, the general rule was that “an action for conversion will not normally lie, when it involves intangible property” because there is no physical item that can be misappropriated ( Sporn v. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 7:04 am
He comments on the decision of Judge Hacon in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in William Mark Corporation & Another v Gift House International Ltd [2014] EWHC 2845 (IPEC). [read post]
10 Jan 2021, 9:01 pm
This destruction of the separation of church and state has been an agenda item for conservative Justices for a while, and has gained steam, as evidenced by the decision in Espinoza last Term. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 5:51 am
Sevidal v. [read post]
3 Feb 2007, 10:49 am
The state had a reasonable explanation for the lack of Wiccan religious services. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 9:03 pm
., the Court will hear a state case, Riley v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 1:39 pm
In dicta in Lingle v. [read post]
