Search for: "People v. Board"
Results 141 - 160
of 8,618
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Feb 2024, 8:15 am
Olive v. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 8:15 am
Olive v. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 2:48 pm
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System . [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 3:37 am
And don’t get me started on the Reasonably Scared Cop Rule of Graham v. [read post]
24 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
For the Balkinization symposium on Robert Post, The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930 (Cambridge University Press, 2024).Edward A. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm
That could also address some of the Article III standing issues I’ve been encouraging people to raise. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 4:00 am
There is also a separate chapter devoted to Indigenous peoples and mental health law, and information regarding coroner’s inquests in Ontario is also included. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 12:51 pm
The case, LePage v. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
In 1918, in Hammer v. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 6:09 am
Smith v. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 2:16 pm
For example, in Smith v. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 6:00 am
A PSC is defined as an individual who satisfies one of the following conditions: (i) has direct or indirect ownership of more than 25% of a company’s shares; (ii) has direct or indirect control of more than 25% of a company’s voting rights; (iii) has direct or indirect rights to appoint or remove a majority of the board of company directors or equivalent management body; (iv) exercises or has the right to exercise significant influence or control over a company; or (v)… [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 5:40 am
"] From Manookian v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 11:47 am
In Morgan v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 9:12 am
The fact that a trade mark might be – even primarily – understood as a promotional formula, does not mean that it cannot be perceived as an indication of origin (CJEU, Smart Technologies v OHIM, C-311/11 P, at para. 30). [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 6:00 am
Ctr., 222 AD3d 1160; Matter of Aungst v Family Dollar, 221 AD3d 1222; and Matter of Holder v Office for People with Dev. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 6:00 am
Ctr., 222 AD3d 1160; Matter of Aungst v Family Dollar, 221 AD3d 1222; and Matter of Holder v Office for People with Dev. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 11:41 pm
” That case, now styled Murthy v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 1:23 pm
Board members regularly socialized with Musk, including attending weddings and birthday parties (including of children related to the people in question) and vacationing together, particularly as part of a tradition and over Christmas. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 7:08 am
"The case is Porter v. [read post]