Search for: "Fields v. Doe" Results 101 - 120 of 9,448
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jul 2011, 2:54 am by Michael DelSignore
It is understandable why this test causes some much confusion because it does not appear to have an scientific basis or reliability. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 7:20 am by The Docket Navigator
[T]he spending vehicle limitation is meaningful because it does not preempt all uses of collateralized loans in the particular field of assignable government payments in exchange for something of value. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 9:43 pm by Simon Gibbs
" Cook on Costs 2010 refers to the cases of Brierley v Prescott [2006] EWHC 90062 (Costs) and Pirie v Ayling [2003] EWHC 9006 (Costs). [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 11:59 am
But in Massachusetts, personal injury caused by a falling soccer goal on a field maintained by a youth soccer association does not result in any liability at all. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 12:16 am by John Diekman
Practice point: The doctrine does not exculpate a landowner from liability for ordinary negligence in maintaining a premises.Student note: Here, however, defendants established as a matter of law that the uneven condition of the soccer field’s artificial turf was open and obvious, and was not the result of defendants' negligence in maintaining the field.Case: Benolol v. [read post]
27 Feb 2021, 8:31 pm by Patent Docs
The webinar will address the following topics: • Review of key UK and EPO cases in this field • Regeneron v Kymab... [read post]