Search for: "Lucas v. District Court"
Results 121 - 140
of 272
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2012, 10:19 am
Rowland, 196 Ohio App.3d 7171, 2011-Ohio-5942 (Sixth District Court of Appeals, Lucas County). [read post]
29 Aug 2019, 10:33 am
On August 22, 2019, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in Paul Cheatham I.R.A. v. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 9:38 am
Supreme Court decided Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
26 May 2009, 2:54 pm
See Lucas v. [read post]
5 Oct 2012, 8:26 am
Affirmed.Case Name: CARL ANTHONY DIMINO v. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 10:27 am
The PRBRC appealed to the district court which certified directly to the Court. [read post]
22 Feb 2021, 11:20 am
District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks more than $1.3 billion in damages. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 2:08 pm
City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1311 (my 4/10/13 post on which can be found here); Lucas v. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 3:00 am
” (Lucas v. [read post]
26 Dec 2023, 2:34 pm
On December 18, the Fifth Circuit rejected the prosecutor's appeal of the distrcit court's injunction in Netflix v. [read post]
26 Feb 2022, 8:51 am
Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 63.07 (2d ed. 1993)); see also, e.g., Burke v. [read post]
30 Nov 2021, 2:10 pm
In Lucas v. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 1:22 am
Self-Correction by District Court of Judicial Error of Law, 43 Notre Dame Law. 98 (1967)); Silk v. [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 8:14 am
Lucas Cty. [read post]
17 May 2012, 10:24 am
Gagne v. [read post]
22 Feb 2020, 4:12 am
Tagnetics has appealed the Settlement Enforcement Order to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “District Court”), stating one issue on appeal: “The Bankruptcy Court erred when it held that the parties’ settlement agreement did not include a release of Tagnetics’ affiliates, subsidiaries, parent corporation, officers, and directors. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 2:24 am
Data Protection and Data Privacy On 14 October 2015, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal handed down judgment in Caroline Lucas and ors v Security Service [pdf] in relation to the so-called “Wilson doctrine”. [read post]
16 May 2007, 1:24 am
May 15, 2007) (NO. 1067, 10946/96)Rochman Platzer Fallick Sternheim Luca & Pearl, LLP, New York (Jillian S. [read post]
23 Aug 2006, 5:59 am
Accordingly, the district court did not err by rejecting Hurwitz's claim that the absence of the Attachment at the time of the search rendered the warrant invalid. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 9:41 pm
(IPBiz) US Patents – Decisions District Court E D Texas jury invalidates one of EFF’s ‘most wanted’ patents: Bright Response LLC v Google, Yahoo! [read post]
