Search for: "D, Otherwise C. v. C"
Results 1381 - 1400
of 4,550
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Mar 2015, 6:41 am
Code §1030(g), 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I). [read post]
16 Nov 2012, 1:50 pm
We find the Restatement’s position in §20 (“Definition of ‘One Who Sells or Otherwise Distributes’”):[I]n a strong majority of jurisdictions, hospitals are held not to be sellers of products they supply in conjunction with the provision of medical care, regardless of the circumstances.Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability § 20, comment d (1998). [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 8:38 am
” People v. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 2:56 pm
Hanover Star v. [read post]
11 May 2022, 4:36 am
Otherwise “inventor” in section 15(1)(c) would have a different meaning to section 15(1)(a). [read post]
19 Dec 2020, 12:29 pm
R. 214(c) “[D]iscovery requests that are disproportionate in terms of burden or expense should be avoided. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 6:11 pm
Troxel v Granville, 530 U.S. 57. [read post]
3 Aug 2014, 4:28 pm
This point was recently driven home in the June, 2014 Miami, Florida case, United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 10:11 pm
Dist. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 8:58 am
See, e.g., In re Cutter, 398 B.R. 6, 21 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Nelson v. [read post]
13 Aug 2011, 4:10 am
By its terms, Section 58.4.c(11) does not cover New York City police officers. [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 11:50 am
R. 501.5 See United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 11:50 am
R. 501.5 See United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 2:24 pm
See, e.g., NFIB v. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 2:39 pm
Facts In Henderson v. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 2:41 pm
And Fischer v. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 10:42 pm
Justice D K JainThe Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 8:17 am
This was because (a) it was drafted by external legal advisers (Freshfields); (b) it contained language which was "that of legal relations" ('in consideration of …'); (c) the reference to an English statute and a provision that the contract was governed by English law; and (d) a clear intention that the confidentiality clause in the side letter was intended to be legally binding. [read post]
