Search for: "Pounds v. United States"
Results 121 - 140
of 1,449
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Nov 2011, 3:59 am
In England and any other common law jurisdiction (outside the United States), the damages would, at most have been in the low tens of thousands of pounds. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 4:54 am
*State v. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 6:20 am
I previously wrote that I was hoping the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Reed Elsevier Inc. v. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 1:17 pm
The case is United States v. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 10:56 pm
Michael v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 1:00 pm
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi is a must-read for anyone involved in contract law. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 6:12 am
See Wenger v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 11:57 am
The rules are a reaction to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 11:50 am
United States v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 10:29 am
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of Bull v. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 2:07 pm
Diaz was released from jail, he was immediately picked up by “ICE”, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement unit, to remove him from the United States. [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 10:19 am
The style of the case is, Cardenas v. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court in the case United States v. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 4:22 pm
I have recently dealt in detail with the position under the English law in comparison to the stronger protections in the United States. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 12:02 pm
United States v. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 7:34 am
Facts: This case (Clark v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 6:25 pm
Almost all the successful United States lawsuits against healthcare providers for unilateral withdrawal were based on a tort theory of outrage or intentional infliction of emotional distress. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 7:50 am
In United States v. [read post]
22 Oct 2008, 8:26 pm
" [See Allen v. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 4:48 am
They argued that, following the Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) judgment (among other things), the ERO was obliged to add their names to the electoral register. [read post]
