Search for: "Hills v. UPS" Results 1521 - 1540 of 3,499
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2012, 12:21 pm by Rekha Arulanantham
Coming up in a couple of weeks, our Washington Legislative Office will host a symposium commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. [read post]
28 Mar 2007, 5:48 am
William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273 at 277, you can reach a wrong result in a copyright case by dividing up the original copyright work into separate parts and then asking whether the separate parts standing on their own could be the subject of copyright. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 4:01 am
Indeed it could.The trustees are apparently intending to appeal to the House of Lords.Update: The Court of Appeal judgment has now been published here, on Bailii (citation: Haines v Hill & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 1284). [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 10:06 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
Thus, a cause of action for a declaratory judgment, not a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, was the proper vehicle to seek relief (see Matter of Huntington Hills Assoc. v Town of Huntington, 49 AD3d 647). [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 10:06 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
Thus, a cause of action for a declaratory judgment, not a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, was the proper vehicle to seek relief (see Matter of Huntington Hills Assoc. v Town of Huntington, 49 AD3d 647). [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 9:21 am by Berin Szoka
Friday, April 16: I’ll be moderating a PFF Capitol Hill briefing on Super-Sizing the FTC & What It Means for the Internet, Media & Advertising. [read post]
8 Jan 2007, 7:33 am
  After all, most people do want to be rich, and look up to people with the means to do things. [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 8:57 am by chief
  Westleigh Properties v 47 Park Hill (Carshalton) RTM: r.13 costs orders Westleigh Properties Ltd v 47 Park Hill (Carshalton) RTM Co Ltd [2019] UKUT 252 (LC) This was an RTM claim which ended up in a hearing. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 7:22 am by John Elwood
United States, 11-5683, and Hill v. [read post]