Search for: "*stanley v. Stanley"
Results 1501 - 1520
of 1,777
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Feb 2009, 5:35 am
Here is an early result of the pernicious decision in Herring v. [read post]
28 Jan 2009, 5:15 am
In Minister of Water & Forestry v. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 9:49 pm
Risk Factor: High Risk: High risk factor as vendors conduct keyword searching with limited input from client legal teams – thus substantially increasing the risk of missing potentially responsive documents as well as decreasing defensibility of the search process (Judge Grimm, Victor Stanley, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 3:06 pm
” At least one white-collar defense lawyer, Stanley Twardy of Day Pitney in Stamford, was chagrined. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
Conte v. [read post]
20 Jan 2009, 4:00 am
By Nima Ashtyani Victor Stanley, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 3:33 am
Lazard Frères and Wells v. [read post]
31 Dec 2008, 5:15 am
See Licht v. [read post]
24 Dec 2008, 5:30 pm
The complaint names Stanley Chais and The Brighton Company. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 9:00 pm
Co., 237 S.C. 133, 139-40, 115 S.E.2d 793, 796 (1960); Stanley Smith & Sons v. [read post]
20 Dec 2008, 3:00 am
gain upper hand in Blu-ray DRM battle (Ars Technica) Africa South African Times report on state of African music, lack of support and protection (Afro-IP) Australia Australian Copyright Tribunal: consumer valuation of copyright: Audio-Visual Copyright Society (t/a Screenrights) v Foxtel and Re PPCA (IPKat) (IP finance) Innovation patents in Australia. [read post]
19 Dec 2008, 8:47 am
In Microsoft v. [read post]
16 Dec 2008, 2:37 pm
Grimm's decision in Victor Stanley, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2008, 2:17 pm
Dec 11, 2008) (NO. 4785, 6588/04)Cardozo Appeals Clinic, New York (Stanley Neustadter of counsel), for appellant. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 8:23 pm
Oral Argument in case: 07-3251; Gross, Jeremy D. v. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 4:32 pm
U.S Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm contributes once again to the body of e-discovery casleaw with Victor Stanley, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 4:20 am
So did the plaintiffs choose a California state court because of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in the Luther v. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 11:54 pm
In R(S) v Sutton, Stanley Burnton J said, at para 40: Prevention undoubtedly involves an objective test. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 3:22 pm
” [23] Stanley Burton LJ and Sir Anthony Clarke MR agreed with Maurice Kay LJ. [read post]
