Search for: "In re An. C."
Results 1701 - 1720
of 28,777
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Oct 2013, 1:32 pm
., Israel); (b) Chrisitans who support the Jews; (c) Muslims You would think the answer would be “c”, but then you’re clearly not as sophisticated a thinker as Diarmaid MacCulloch, who, writing in the Daily Beast, thinks that the answer is (a) and (b) with only “an extremist militant minority of” ‘c’, “who betray their own religion by intolerance, and who make other Muslims ashamed of what is happening” also to… [read post]
29 Sep 2008, 11:08 pm
In Re Seneca Investments LLC, 2008 WL 4329230 (Del. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 8:57 am
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011); e.g., In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 11:26 am
Three additional cases built on the need to make findings related to the 7B-2501(c) factors, relying on the precedent set in In re Ferrell. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 4:00 am
Son dossier est une cause type relativement à la divulgation de la preuve en matière d’alcootest à la suite de R. c. [read post]
25 Aug 2017, 6:54 pm
In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1557 (Fed. [read post]
3 Sep 2008, 4:34 am
Those persons shall be summoned as directed by the judge. [1985 c.703 §15; 1995 c.781 §26]" (Text of entire 2007 ORS is here, and the 2008 Special Session Laws are here.)Note: "We're walking, we're walking," from funny movie Dave; and if you've seen the scene, you'll talk the "walk. [read post]
8 Apr 2009, 8:03 am
If BigLaw re-thinks its business, what might it look like? [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 9:44 am
Or pick another nonprofit that you love or hate; they're pretty much all there. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 11:46 am
They’re rich. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 12:00 pm
But c'mon, folks -- it's a competition for most amusing LEGAL BLOG. [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 9:59 am
You've generally got to be admitted to the Bar, and the Bar to which you're admitted generally needs to be the one in which you're practicing. [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 4:00 am
Those presenting the findings suggest that they necessitate a re-thinking of the merit of C-sections in certain situations. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 3:16 am
I'm not giving any hints, so you're on your own, my friends. [read post]
18 Feb 2022, 4:49 am
In re Moxley Homes, LLC, Serial Nos. 88882171 and 88882239 (February 11, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. [read post]
22 Dec 2022, 3:23 am
"Wrote Natalia Ginzburg in 1948, quoted in a new New York Review of Books piece, "On Women: An Exchange Natalia Ginzburg and Alba de Céspedes, introduction by Ann Goldstein. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 8:55 am
Res. 23 and S.J. [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 6:56 am
In re G.J.D., 2010-Ohio-2677 (11th Dist.) [read post]
19 Jul 2008, 7:23 am
I think I see something sprouting up top.Note to Self: Remind readers at some point that this conversation never happened, that Adam Liptak won't take your calls and even though he reads Simple Justice religiously, pretends that he doesn't know you at parties.H/T Mike at C&F [read post]
15 Feb 2021, 3:57 am
The CJEU judgment of 22 October 2020 in the testarossa case (C‑720/18 and C‑721/18) maintains the generous line from the 2003 Ansul judgment (C‑40/01), saying that a trademark can be maintained for “automobiles” based on re-sales (by the trademark owner) of used cars and of replacement parts and accessories, and on repair and maintenance services, provided these were offered under the mark. [read post]
