Search for: "Case v. Case" Results 1161 - 1180 of 294,865
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Nov 2015, 1:00 am by Stuart Brooks, Olswang LLP
The Court of Appeal also found that, although there were some general similarities between the CRD and Kiddee Case, several differences between them contributed to a different overall impression, including: (i) the asymmetric profile of the Kiddee Case; (ii) the absence of a cutaway area along the top of the case; (iii) the absence of filled-in wheel arches; (iv) the softer and more rounded shape; and (v) the lack of contrasting wheels. [read post]
19 Apr 2008, 10:38 am
Does 1-17, the case targeting University of Oregon students, the RIAA has cited to the court the Magistrate Judge's decision denying a motion to quash in the Marshall University case, Arista v. [read post]
23 Nov 2019, 10:00 am by Reproductive Rights
Bustle (Nov. 13, 2019): SCOTUS Will Hear An Abortion Rights Case With Major Implications, by Jo Yurcaba: The Supreme Court of the United States will hear the Louisiana abortion case June Medical Services v. [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 4:05 am by Howard Friedman
Supreme Court in Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 11:26 am by Ross Dannenberg
Very few details right now, except that case was filed in District of Massachusetts and is court docket number 1:12-cv-10576. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 3:42 am by Russ Bensing
Ice overruled State v. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 4:20 am by Charlotte Bamford, Olswang LLP
This case concerns cuts enacted by a local council in 2012 and addresses a claim, brought by a ‘qualifying young person’ that, in applying cuts to the local budget, the council of North Somerset failed to have due regard to its statutory obligations to protect young and disabled members within its area of authority. [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 1:17 am by Ayesha Christie, Matrix
Readers interested in immigration cases involving mental and physical health must also read the recent ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment in Paposhvili v Belgium (App No. 41738/10), 13 Dec 2016, which transforms the Article 3 case law in relation to the removal of seriously ill persons, and departs from the long-standing and highly restrictive approach in N v UK (App No. [read post]