Search for: "Tate v. Tate"
Results 161 - 180
of 522
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Oct 2014, 5:26 pm
The Court noted that although defendant’s guilty plea forfeited his claim that his statutory right to testify under CPL § 190.50 was violated, the “claimed deprivation of the [s]tate constitutional right to counsel may be raised on appeal, notwithstanding that the issue was not preserved” before the lower court (citing People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773 [1983]). [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 10:46 am
The latest of these (at least the last time he looked anyway) is that of Tate & Lyle Technology Ltd v Roquette Freres, decided yesterday by Mr Justice Lewison (pictured, right) in the Patents Court.The case related to the validity of a European patent granted to Roquette Freres, which the IPKat presumes is EP0905138 (the patent does not seem to be mentioned by number in the judgment itself, unless the IPKat's eyes and search technology are deceiving him). [read post]
27 Nov 2011, 11:13 am
In Howard-Jones v Tate, the UK Court of Appeal has vehemently answered this question in the negative, reasserting the distinction between rescission and repudiatory breach forcefully laid down by Lord Wilberforce in Johnson v Agnew. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 4:10 am
Individuals receiving unemployment Insurance Benefits are ineligible to receive ineligible to receive emergency unemployment compensation benefits Matter of Umpierre v Commissioner of Labor, 2011 NY Slip Op 00470, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentJose A. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 5:50 am
Tate, 129 F.3d 118, 1997 WL 693049, *1 (4th Cir. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 7:00 am
LEXIS 87231 (ND NY, June 26, 2014), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate’s complaint that a prison staff member made disparaging remarks about his religion.In Tate v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 3:35 am
Co. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 6:32 am
The appellate court based its analysis on the test set forth in Tate v. [read post]
1 Aug 2006, 12:09 pm
"); Conant v. [read post]
1 Dec 2017, 3:33 am
”The relevant case law for commandments 1 to 10 seems to be: Fylde Microsystems Ltd v Key Radio Systems Ltd [1998] FSR 449 Levy v Rutley (1871) (1871) LR 6 CP Tate v Thomas [1921] 1 Ch 503 Wiseman v George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd [1985] FSR 525 Fylde Microsystems… [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 3:26 pm
Devadhar, Hon’ble Shri Justice V. [read post]
29 Jun 2008, 10:04 pm
Supreme Court found in Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 8:09 am
Whren v. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 4:12 am
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 19/12/22) The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 Fearn and others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery heard 7th December 2021 Canada… [read post]
20 Jul 2009, 9:34 am
Less than a year later, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's death penalty in People v. [read post]
27 Jul 2021, 1:44 pm
Lewis v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 2:23 pm
Richard of the Richard Law Firm, PC, Jackson, Wyoming.Representing Tate: Larry B. [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 3:45 am
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 16/12/22) The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 Fearn and others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery heard 7th December 2021… [read post]
15 May 2007, 12:52 am
Tate Access Floors, Inc., 31 F.Supp.2d 524, 528 (D.Md.1999). [read post]
9 May 2006, 4:18 am
Co. v. [read post]
