Search for: "Wells v. Hand"
Results 1721 - 1740
of 18,608
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Mar 2008, 3:46 pm
In United States v. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 8:13 am
Group, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 8:26 am
Stat. 766.118 lacks any rational relation to a state objective, and fails both the “smell test” (another quote from Justice Pariente in Estate of McCall) as well as the rational basis test. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 10:36 am
From Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen) (bullets and some paragraph breaks added): [A] controversy over Twitter postings by CallMeMoneyBags … presents the latest challenge in the Northern District of California to the well established rule, first established in 2001 in Dendrite International v. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 9:32 pm
Supreme Court will address in Monsanto Co. v. [read post]
16 May 2012, 3:00 am
The case of the day is Baker Hughes Inc. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 7:38 am
Consider last Term’s decision in Shelby County v. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 7:04 am
This was a problem for oil exploration companies, who would generally have to spend about $25M each time in order to drill a test well to find out. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 11:32 pm
CA 8668/19 CHANEL v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 12:49 pm
The eagerly awaited decision in Halliburton Co. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 11:11 am
Even hands-free. [read post]
16 May 2007, 4:21 pm
This case proves contracting parties as well as the Legislature can hand the courts a conundrum in which two contradictory interpretations are equally plausible. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 11:52 am
In Williams v. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 6:11 pm
In Emma Murray v. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 11:38 pm
Similarly, when all is said and done in Alice v. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 2:05 pm
And, in Dunnes Stores v Ryan [2002] IEHC 61 (5 June 2002), Kearns J in the High Court struck down section 19(6) of the Companies Act, 1990 (also here), which required a company to provide an explanation or make a statement to an officer making inquiries about the company, on the grounds, inter alia, that it infringed the right to silence implied into Article 40.6.1(i) (a right now being relocated to Article 38.1 of the Constitution insofar as it relates to… [read post]
29 Aug 2024, 6:57 am
SBA is also proposing to amend the affiliation test on negative control (at 13 C.F.R. 121.103(a)(3)) and to add the same language to the regulations governing the 8(a) BD Program (at 13 C.F.R. 124.106(h)) and WOSB Program (13 C.F.R. 127.202(h)): SBA will not find that a minority shareholder has negative control where such minority shareholder has the authority to block action by the board of directors or shareholders regarding the following extraordinary circumstances:(i) Adding a new equity… [read post]
6 Oct 2005, 8:17 pm
Jaramillo v. [read post]
2 Dec 2007, 12:08 pm
A recent decision from the United Kingdom held that it is possible to defraud a machine, as well as a human being.The case is Renault UK Limited v. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 9:01 pm
In the space below, we analyze an important and interesting decision, Demers v. [read post]
