Search for: "Urbanic v. Urbanic"
Results 1421 - 1440
of 2,632
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Mar 2015, 12:28 pm
CREED-21 v. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 12:32 pm
In an urban area like Detroit, however, each cell site covers `typically anywhere from a half-mile to two miles. [read post]
5 Dec 2014, 4:57 am
Lexington–Fayette Urban Cnty. [read post]
4 May 2007, 10:42 pm
Teodoro Toledo and Joseph Tucker claim that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) breached their rights under a collective bargaining agreement. [read post]
8 Jul 2022, 10:14 am
In Holder v. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 4:53 pm
Texas Department of Housing Affairs v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 1:33 pm
(Goleta Union School Dist. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 10:28 pm
Sierra Club v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 8:30 am
” In Trafficante v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 8:36 am
Or until there's a cleansing fire, which creates the urban palimpsest. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 2:39 am
However, if on its face a “complaint includes facts that demonstrate no likelihood of success, the respondent is entitled to a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking,” Urban Logic, citing 1 Model Management, LLC. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 6:49 am
Department of Housing and Urban Development (W.D. [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 7:00 am
In Tracy First v. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 7:49 am
State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 6:17 am
Sims to Bush v. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 5:03 am
Our urban renaissance continues at warp speed. [read post]
29 Apr 2024, 2:44 pm
Key US Supreme Court decisions, such as Jones v. [read post]
18 May 2022, 4:00 am
One day we were discussing Int'l Societyy for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 2:10 pm
Brussels court in FN Herstal v Heckler & Koch wrestles with combination invention v mere aggregation of features. [read post]
10 Mar 2013, 5:10 am
In the context of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, where the same definitions apply, it had been suggested, albeit obiter, that it was sufficient to qualify under either subsection, even though this would render the shared ownership provision irrelevant: see Brick Farm Management Ltd v Richmond Housing Partnership Ltd [2005] EWHC 1650.The UT took the same approach. [read post]
