Search for: "Parker v. Parker"
Results 1261 - 1280
of 2,336
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Mar 2009, 5:29 am
Parker, R. v. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 7:48 am
Warby Parker * Court Dismisses Trademark Claims Over Internal Search Results–Las Vegas Skydiving v. [read post]
30 May 2023, 4:03 pm
Parker (1954), and Kelo v. [read post]
27 Jun 2007, 5:27 am
Parker, 2007 U.S. [read post]
28 Nov 2007, 11:09 am
See also Parker v. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 1:00 am
The court was also keen to stress the fact that there was a commercial rationale for the charge owing to the clear benefits (to both consumers and retail businesses) of ensuring a relatively high turnover of visitors to the facilities which therefore justified deterring parkers from overstaying. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 7:11 am
Parker 2012-Ohip-4741 (8th Dist.) [read post]
25 Aug 2007, 7:21 pm
Roach v. [read post]
3 Jul 2009, 1:15 pm
State v. [read post]
22 Oct 2007, 9:40 pm
State v. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 8:43 am
Warby Parker * Court Dismisses Trademark Claims Over Internal Search Results–Las Vegas Skydiving v. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 4:34 am
” Briefly: At the Constitutional Accountability Center, Ashwin Phatak looks at Parker v. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 4:30 am
” (Herbert H Post & Co. v Sidney Bitterman, Inc., 219 AD2d 214, 224 [1st Dept 1996], quoting Franklin v Winard, 199 AD2d 220, 221 [1st Dept 1993]). [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 5:00 am
Gene Parker of Hattiesburg [correction: Vicksburg] represented Forrest General. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 1:01 pm
In Staub v. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 10:01 am
In the 7-4 decision, the Court of Appeals cites executive authority and national security concerns in declining to extend Bivens liability in this context.The case is Arar v. [read post]
21 Dec 2007, 6:40 am
Case Name: Fernandez v. [read post]
9 Dec 2006, 4:11 am
The District's City Council has banned handguns, and that ban is being challenged in Court in the case of Shelly Parker v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 8:02 am
There are exceptions to that rule, but the courts are not that forgiving.The case is Jenkins v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 6:03 am
Which is why we have the doctrine of "judicial estoppel," which means that you cannot take a legal position in one proceeding and then take the opposite legal position in another proceeding.The case is DeRosa v. [read post]
