Search for: "J. B. Floyd" Results 101 - 120 of 138
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Oct 2017, 8:17 am
Kitchin LJ was supported by Floyd LJ and Sir Geoffrey Vos, both of wh [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 1:46 pm by Christopher Simon
The Superior Court, Floyd County, Walther, J., granted summary judgment to restaurant. [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 1:00 pm by Phil Dixon
This post summarizes criminal law and related opinions decided during August 2020 by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. [read post]
15 Dec 2015, 6:26 am
 In Crystal Fibres v Fianum [2009] EWHC 2149 (Pat) it was described as difficult to construe and apparently quite narrow (per Floyd J as he then was, paragraph 24). [read post]
10 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
On 7 and 8 March 2019 Warby J heard the first two days of data protection trial in the case of Rudd v Bridle. [read post]
9 Feb 2020, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
Last Week in the Courts On 4 to 7 February 2020 Warby J heard the trial in the case of Sube v News Group Newspapers. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 11:00 am by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
(Bronx); Lillian Roberts, Executive Director, District Council 37, AFSCME; John Samuelsen, President Transport Workers Union Local 100; Gregory Floyd, President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 237. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 7:26 am
At First instance ([2010] EWHC 660 (Pat)), Floyd J found the patent valid but not infringed. [read post]
23 Jun 2023, 8:22 am
In the United States, and especially since the social upheaval that occurred in in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, U.S. enterprises have becme more active agents of the social justice movement that became more centered in elite discourse after that time (Companies Taking A Public Stand In The Wake Of George Floyd’s Death ("Numerous companies have made public statements against racism and injustice and announced donations and other displays of support since the… [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm by renholding
I dissent from the Commission’s denial of a petition to amend Rule 202.5(e), our so-called gag rule.[1]  This de facto rule follows from the Commission’s enforcement of its policy, adopted in 1972, that it will not “permit a defendant or respondent to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the allegations in the complaint or order for proceedings. [read post]