Search for: "U. S. v. Light"
Results 1621 - 1640
of 1,817
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2016, 3:17 am
Justice Kornreich’s ruling in Matter of Belardi-Ostroy, Ltd. v American List Counsel, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 30727(U) [Sup Ct NY County Apr. 14, 2016], denied injunctive relief and dismissed a dissolution petition which asked her effectively to override an order issued last December by a New Jersey judge appointing a fifth Board member to fill a vacancy on the LLC’s otherwise deadlocked five-member Board of Directors. [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 3:17 am
Justice Kornreich’s ruling in Matter of Belardi-Ostroy, Ltd. v American List Counsel, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 30727(U) [Sup Ct NY County Apr. 14, 2016], denied injunctive relief and dismissed a dissolution petition which asked her effectively to override an order issued last December by a New Jersey judge appointing a fifth Board member to fill a vacancy on the LLC’s otherwise deadlocked five-member Board of Directors. [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 3:17 am
Justice Kornreich’s ruling in Matter of Belardi-Ostroy, Ltd. v American List Counsel, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 30727(U) [Sup Ct NY County Apr. 14, 2016], denied injunctive relief and dismissed a dissolution petition which asked her effectively to override an order issued last December by a New Jersey judge appointing a fifth Board member to fill a vacancy on the LLC’s otherwise deadlocked five-member Board of Directors. [read post]
16 Dec 2016, 1:43 pm
Even under the appropriately exacting standards of New York Times v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 2:55 am
Although the Court of Appeal was clear, in Neurim v Generics [2020] EWCA Civ 793, that deciding to uphold the lower court’s decision not to grant a pharmaceutical patent PI was based on the specific facts of that case, the Patents Court has subsequently refused two further pharmaceutical PIs (Neurim v Teva [2022] EWHC 954 (Pat) and [2022] EWHC 1641(Pat), and Novartis v Teva [2022] EWHC 959 (Ch)). [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 7:14 am
See Fargo Women’s Health Organization, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2007, 10:37 am
U. [read post]
4 May 2021, 8:49 am
U. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 3:48 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
27 Oct 2022, 12:17 pm
In an amicus brief filed in Davidson v. [read post]
2 May 2022, 1:48 pm
” In contrast, the agency’s previously released strategic plan had described the agency’s mission as promoting “competition” for the benefit of consumers, consistent with the case law’s commitment to protecting consumer welfare, dating at least to the Supreme Court’s 1979 decision in Reiter v. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 7:59 am
Esa "selección" es a veces precisamente la causa-fin del contrato, como notoriamente ocurre con los que asisten a sitios de "solos y solas".Y estas cláusulas tácitas, válidas como todo ejercicio de la libertad de contratación, serán nulas sólo en la medida en que aquel compromiso… [read post]
9 May 2007, 1:34 pm
Stephenson v. [read post]
19 Mar 2022, 2:09 pm
The FDA’s M7 Guidance observes that “[s]tandard risk assessments of known carcinogens assume that cancer risk increases as a function of cumulative dose. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 4:05 pm
After Stalin’s atrocities came to light, in 1990 a member of The New York Times editorial board admitted that “Duranty’s articles were some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper. [read post]
7 May 2018, 3:28 am
Transactional lawyers who assist clients in the formation and restructuring of business entities, and the litigators who clean up the transactional lawyers’ occasional messes, each have lessons to learn from last week’s appellate ruling in 223 Sam, LLC v 223 15th Street, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03118 [2d Dept May 2, 2018]. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 9:37 am
Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 9:55 am
Frosh, Bowie knife laws are an important part of his argument, including with a citation to my article Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 U. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 3:28 am
Take Hanley v Hanley, 2019 NY Slip Op 50970(U) [Sup Ct Albany County June 13, 2019], in which Justice Richard M. [read post]
20 Nov 2006, 9:19 pm
Más llanamente, lo decimos asÃ: a un juez le será siempre más cómodo y más "imparcial" partir de algo que alguien haya dicho antes, y por las dudas aplicarlo a rajatabla. [read post]
