Search for: "Parker v Parker"
Results 1861 - 1880
of 2,344
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Nov 2019, 12:48 pm
Supreme Court decided to hear an appeal of a Ninth Circuit case, SEC v. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 4:14 am
” “Finally, we affirm Supreme Court’s dismissal of the fraud, aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary claims against Davie Kaplan as duplicative of Epiphany’s untimely accounting malpractice claim (see Murray Hill Invs. v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, LLP, 305 AD2d 228 [1st Dept 2003] [affirming dismissal of fraud claim as duplicative of the untimely legal malpractice claim, and noting that it was asserted in an attempt to circumvent the… [read post]
1 Apr 2018, 4:20 pm
Supreme Court granted cert in China Agritech Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2022, 2:42 pm
Hallett v Parker & Ors (HOUSING – RENT REPAYMENT ORDER – proper approach – factors relevant to determination of sum to be repaid) (2022) UKUT 165 (LC) (24 June 2022) The landlord lived abroad and used a letting agent to find tenants (though not manage the flat). [read post]
24 Oct 2007, 2:59 pm
You could already begin to see the influence of that audience when the case (then captioned Parker v. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 6:50 am
It is sufficient for the claimant to be affected by the court's determination: see Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union[2009] EWCA Civ 387, [2010] 1 WLR 318 at [120] (Aikens LJ), Feetum v Levy [2005] EWCA Civ 1601, [2006] Ch 585 at [82] (Jonathan Parker LJ) and Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 270, [2012] 1 P&CR 3 at [44] (Mummery LJ). [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 10:43 am
Parker, 54 N.C. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 12:36 pm
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruling in Dimas-Martinez v. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 8:03 am
Mount Laurel Township -- scope of "public use" doctrine under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, when a local government acts on an ad hoc basis rather than through a full planning process. 06-1380, Parker estate v. [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 4:30 am
Dixon and the Cowan v. [read post]
10 Jun 2007, 6:56 am
United States, 61 M.J. 147 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (remanding to determine whether petitioner is seeking to sever his attorney-client relationship) [Category 1]Parker v. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 3:26 pm
State v. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 5:54 am
Pleasant Grove City v. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 8:07 am
Andre V. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 3:59 pm
The story began with Bush v. [read post]
16 Jul 2007, 8:57 am
The case is Parker, et al., v. [read post]
9 Nov 2017, 3:14 am
2, 2017) [PTAB Decision: Livermore101] The PTAB writes: We agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to the abstract idea of manipulating data through mathematical relationships, which is similar to the computing formula discussed in Parker v. [read post]
26 Mar 2007, 11:18 pm
Circuit thought was involved in Parker. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 8:16 am
In a decision decided last month, the California Court of Appeals for the First District, in Palagin v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 5:54 am
[2]HCR v. [read post]
