Search for: "State v. Gaines"
Results 1601 - 1620
of 9,701
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Apr 2009, 10:21 am
Plaintiff Leroy Rasanen, in Rasanen v. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 9:00 am
” State v. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 5:56 pm
Facts of the Case In Howard v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 9:10 am
United States v. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 12:42 pm
A unanimous United States Supreme Court held Monday, in Kokesh v. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 9:26 pm
On 30th September 2011 in State of Haryana v. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 2:58 pm
On June 9, 2005, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department heard the case of Isaiah Brown, Appellant, v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 3:00 am
I suggest that this may be the case because the test for capacity to marry, as stated in Banton v. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 8:52 am
H.R.23: Gaining Responsibility on Water (GROW) Act of 2017 [read post]
28 Jul 2021, 8:49 am
HMRC’s contention was that Mr Haworth’s arrangements, as described above, were, in all material respects the same as those used by the taxpayer in HM Revenue and Customs v Smallwood & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 778 (“Smallwood”), where it was decided that the “place of effective management” of the trust in question was the UK at the time of the disposal in question, and therefore the gain was subject to UK capital gains tax. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 4:43 am
Corp. v Gaines, 274 AD2d 385, 386). [read post]
31 Oct 2018, 2:20 pm
No. 17-1323 (MN).United States District Court, D. [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 3:00 am
The recent case of Morano v. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 2:18 am
“Infringement” refers to the complainant’s right to exclude others from using the trademark in a domain name to gain an advantage at the complainant’s expense. [read post]
20 Mar 2010, 4:38 am
Cross Constr., 294 A.D.2d at 25-26, 743 N.Y.S.2d 212).Laezzo v. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 4:42 am
Here, as in Valsamaki, there was virtually no evidence of any kind that any such extreme circumstances existed, but rather it appeared that the City was using quick-take proceedings to gain a litigation and negotiating advantage rather than proceeding from and with the requisite justification demanded by the federal and state due process requirements, and the specific language of the statute.The opinion is available in PDF format. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 3:30 am
Mary Ziegler In the aftermath of Dobbs v. [read post]
11 Feb 2019, 12:15 pm
The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the Federal Circuits’ Decision for the Helsinn Healthcare v. [read post]
4 Aug 2017, 6:40 am
State v. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 3:39 am
Reading between the lines in Minkow v. [read post]
