Search for: "Young v. Young" Results 1641 - 1660 of 12,741
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jun 2021, 11:32 am by Eleonora Rosati
Bentley v Bentley: Clothing beats Motors again in the Court of AppealBentley Motors Limited v (1) Bentley 1962 Limited (2) Brandlogic Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 1726 (December 2020) This was the first ever case featured in Retromark and turned up again in Volume 7. [read post]
8 Jun 2021, 7:56 am by Ion Meyn
At the heart of the rule-resistant narrative is Graham v. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 11:32 am by Ilya Somin
That would simultaneously end sex discrimination and free young Americans of both sexes from the threat of forced labor. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 9:35 am by Amy Howe
The court granted Federal Bureau of Investigation v. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 8:23 am
  After the sequestration/liquidation of the Debtor, the Creditor can no longer perfect the bond and the Creditor will rank as a concurrent creditor with a preferential claim against the free residue of the insolvent estate (Trisilino v De Vries). [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 8:23 am
  After the sequestration/liquidation of the Debtor, the Creditor can no longer perfect the bond and the Creditor will rank as a concurrent creditor with a preferential claim against the free residue of the insolvent estate (Trisilino v De Vries). [read post]
4 Jun 2021, 4:42 am by David Oscar Markus
Bailey took it all the way to the Supreme Court and Sheppard v. [read post]
3 Jun 2021, 6:36 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
The test originated in the foundational case of Bardal v Globe and Mail Ltd., a 1960 Ontario decision. [read post]
31 May 2021, 11:57 pm by Eleonora Rosati
The reference can appear unusual and also questionable, but it is not the first time that an Italian court refers expressly to the doctrine of US fair use in deciding a dispute under Italian law (see also Court of Milan, July 13, 2011, Foundation Alberto et Annette Giacometti v Fondazione Prada in a case of “transformative use”). [read post]
31 May 2021, 7:51 pm by Peter Mahler
The New York Court of Appeals’ 2012 opinion in Pappas v Tzolis, decided in the wake and spirit of that court’s rulings the year before in the Centro Empresarial v America Movil and Arfa v Zamir cases, raised the bar for claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty brought by non-controlling shareholders and LLC members in connection with buyout transactions. [read post]