Search for: "State v. Items of Property"
Results 1381 - 1400
of 2,964
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2007, 7:00 am
Last Friday, July 20th, the Texas Supreme Court denied the plaintiff taxpayer's petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decision in DuPont Photomasks, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2015, 5:54 am
This Kat was quite content when all the news items concerning Ella the selfie-taking black macaque had gone quiet [on which see earlier Katpost here]. [read post]
25 Nov 2011, 5:40 am
The 1972 case of Hanover Insurance Company v. [read post]
15 Oct 2015, 7:25 am
In O’Toole v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 3:08 am
I can only hope it provokes a review of the adequacy of the measures available to combat the international trade in fake goods by preventing their transhipment through Member States".The IPKat shares the judge's sentiments. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 5:26 pm
The Washington Supreme Court held in State v. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 7:10 pm
(City of New York by Redlich v. [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 6:00 am
Life Investors, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 313, 317 [223 Cal.Rptr. 539], superseded by statute as stated in Cooper v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 9:32 am
In a recent personal injury case, Kids R Kids International, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2007, 2:43 pm
The court stated that a "debtor who lists only those items that the debtor believes are property of the estate improperly truncates the creditor/trustee review process and usurps the role of the court. [read post]
21 Aug 2007, 2:43 pm
The court stated that a "debtor who lists only those items that the debtor believes are property of the estate improperly truncates the creditor/trustee review process and usurps the role of the court. [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 11:15 am
In United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 10:47 am
So, without further ado, we come first to Church Commissioners v Derdabi [2011] UKUT 380 (LC).The appellants were the freeholders of a property in London and the respondent was their long leaseholder. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 10:47 am
So, without further ado, we come first to Church Commissioners v Derdabi [2011] UKUT 380 (LC).The appellants were the freeholders of a property in London and the respondent was their long leaseholder. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 10:47 am
So, without further ado, we come first to Church Commissioners v Derdabi [2011] UKUT 380 (LC).The appellants were the freeholders of a property in London and the respondent was their long leaseholder. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 10:47 am
So, without further ado, we come first to Church Commissioners v Derdabi [2011] UKUT 380 (LC).The appellants were the freeholders of a property in London and the respondent was their long leaseholder. [read post]
7 May 2010, 6:05 am
Count 2 therefore states a violation of 18 U.S. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 9:53 am
Rule 41(g) states, in pertinent part, that a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 2:41 pm
In Lee’s Ford Dock, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 8:34 am
The reason you're limited to the State of Arizona exemptions (and a couple of others) is that Arizona is what's called an "opt-out" state, because it did. [read post]
