Search for: "Thomas v. The Law Office of J. T. Thomas" Results 121 - 140 of 637
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Nov 2018, 7:12 pm by Eugene Volokh
Ct. 1719, 1740–48 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). [9].Janus, 138 S. [read post]
24 Jan 2016, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
The Law Commission has launched a consultation to explore how the law governing misconduct in a public office is being used and the problems caused by its lack of clarity. [read post]
8 Nov 2015, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
Judgments The following reserved judgment in media law cases are outstanding: Rahman v ARY Network Ltd, heard 1, 2 and 6 July 2015 (Haddon-Cave J). [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 2:47 pm
Thomas trialExhibit R-Kent State University Student Legal Services Office siteExhibit S-Digital Music Law Class at University of Ottawa School of Law, Professor DeBeer lesson planExhibit T-Beckerman, Ray, "Large Recording Companies vs. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 5:20 pm by INFORRM
Ferdinand v MGN, heard 4 to 6 July 2011 (Nicol J) Thornton v Telegraph Media Group, heard 4 to 6 and 8 July 2011 (Tugendhat J) Robins & anr v Kordowski, heard on 14 July 2011 (Tugendhat J) [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 1:15 pm by Orin Kerr
Ct. 945, 956, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (quoting Illinois v. [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 11:14 pm
"'Cupo spent over $250,000 to have his case against Lawrence Denike tried to conclusion and now as a direct result of the actions of Thomas J. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 9:13 am by INFORRM
In the Courts On 23 and 24 June 2010, the Court of Appeal (Ward, Thomas and Richards LJJ) heard the defendants’ appeal against the decision of Tugendhat J in Clift v Slough BC ([2009] EWHC 1150 (QB)). [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 1:45 am
United States "Time granted to defendant to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excluded from counting of Speedy Trial Act 70-day limit between filing of federal indictment and commencement of trial (Thomas, J.) [read post]
29 Jun 2019, 4:38 am
” The US Copyright Office rejected the application, on the basis that it “lack[ed] the requisite authorship necessary to support a copyright claim”.In its first reconsideration request (February 28, 2018), Tommy Hilfiger explained how the arrangement of the shapes was unique “in that it [was] a creative combination of the letters ’T’, ‘J’ and ‘H’ of the nautical flag alphabet to create a unique flag”,… [read post]
31 Oct 2010, 5:30 pm by INFORRM
McLaughlin & ors v London Borough of Lambeth, heard 19-21 October 2010 (Tugendhat J). [read post]