Search for: "Parker v. Parker"
Results 1461 - 1480
of 2,337
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2019, 2:00 am
” Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 9:01 pm
In short, the court concluded in LePage v. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 11:54 am
In likewise rejecting that claim the Court stated: "blight is an elastic concept that does not call for an inflexible, one-size-fits-all definition (see Berman v Parker, 348 US 26, 33-34 [1954]). [read post]
20 Nov 2007, 5:25 am
Originally captioned Parker v. [read post]
4 Sep 2024, 12:48 pm
Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350 (1983). [read post]
6 May 2022, 2:25 pm
Means v. [read post]
9 Sep 2018, 12:57 pm
Parker, the earlier precedent on which it is based), Gonzales v. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 1:34 pm
Clay Parker, 160 So. 3d 955 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). [read post]
11 Feb 2019, 12:05 pm
Varjabedian (April 15): In a lawsuit alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether a private plaintiff has to show that a person who made a false statement intended to do so, or whether it is enough that the false statement was made negligently Parker Drilling Management Services v. [read post]
15 Jan 2018, 7:44 am
State v. [read post]
6 Feb 2007, 6:38 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 3:08 pm
Bill Moyers' Journal on 4 Sept 09 had a debate of sorts between Trevor Potter and Floyd Abrams over issues surrounding Citizens United v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 1:34 pm
Caldwell (relisted after 2/25 Conference) Docket: 10-622 Issue(s): (1) Whether a binding agreement among multiple states and private companies is immunized from antitrust scrutiny under the state-action immunity doctrine of Parker v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 12:43 pm
Dukes involving the standard for class-action certification, and a fourth time in Parker v. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 8:15 am
Ct. 3218, 3225 (2010) (noting that whether claims are di- rected to statutory subject matter is a “threshold test”); Parker v. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 10:29 am
[i] See SEC v. [read post]
23 Oct 2024, 12:03 pm
This is a major ruling validating the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising, which occurs when an advertiser purchases and displays ads triggered in response to third-party trademarks. [read post]
11 Mar 2012, 10:52 am
Judge Davis distinguished the ’443 patent claims from the claim in Parker v. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 11:25 am
Video Software Dealers Association and Ortiz v. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 6:45 am
Parker, 133 F.3d 322 (U.S. [read post]
