Search for: "State v. Parker" Results 1321 - 1340 of 1,620
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2015, 4:13 pm by INFORRM
On the same day Kenneth Parker J will hear applications in the case of Decoulos v Axel Springer Schweiz AG and Andrews J will ha [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 12:39 am by Graeme Hall
In the courts: RG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and North Wiltshire District Council (HB) [2011] UKUT 198 (AAC) (05 May 2011): Failure to provide family with enough housing benefit to give disabled daughters separate bedrooms not breach of human rights Parker Rhodes Hickmotts Solicitors v The Legal Services Commission [2011] EWHC 1323 (Admin) (25 May 2011): Immigration solicitor fails in challenge to Legal Aid contract – “sad” but… [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 8:33 am by Ad Law Defense
Dec. 12, 2016) (Statement of Interest)) and through consent decrees (see Nat’l Fed. of the Blind and United States v. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 2:31 am by INFORRM
Reserved Judgments Harrison v Cameron, heard 26 March 2024 (Steyn J) BW Legal Services Limited v Trustpilot,  heard 7 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Unity Plus Healthcare Limited v Clay and others,  heard 1 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Parsons v Atkinson, heard 26 and 27 February 2024 (Farbey J) Vince v Associated Newspapers, heard 19 February 2024 (HHJ Lewis) Pacini v Dow Jones, heard 13 December 2023 (HHJ Parkes KC) Wilson v… [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 6:38 am by Thom Cooper
A recent Pennsylvania decision, Health Care & Retirement Corporation of America v. [read post]
10 Nov 2023, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
” The complaint alleges Sun made threats against officials with the city, interfered with a lawful court order, violated state custodial interference laws, and engaged in disorderly conduct. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 7:20 am
The Debtors filed a petition seeking relief under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Chapter 7 Case"). [read post]
23 May 2011, 2:20 am by Kelly
Advising inventors, their spouses, and their start-up companies: James Joyce v Armstrong Teasdale (Patently-O) District Court N D California: Use of patent reexamination evidence in parallel litigation: Volterra Semiconductor Corporation v Primarion Inc (Patents Post-Grant) District Court E D California: Government’s approval of false marking settlement precludes later challenge that settlement was “staged” and therefore lacks preclusive effect: Champion… [read post]
17 Jun 2012, 7:10 pm by Barry Eagar
Du Cros Ltd. (1913) AC 624 at 634, 635) Lord Parker of Waddington having remarked upon the difficulty of finding the right criterion by which to determine whether a proposed mark is or is not "adapted to distinguish" the applicant's goods defined the crucial question practically as I have stated it, and added two sentences which have often been quoted but to which it is well to return for an understanding of the problem in a case such as the present. [read post]