Search for: "Arnold v. State" Results 141 - 160 of 1,498
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Mar 2015, 6:23 am by Matthew R. Arnold, Esq.
Arnold is admitted to practice in all state courts in North Carolina, in the United States Federal Court for the Western District of North Carolina, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, and in the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 11:25 pm
”  As in Teva v Gilead, Arnold J provided his own view on how the CJEU should answer the proposed question. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 1:00 pm
4) ISPs should bear implementation costs ... and may think of preventative filtering as a cheaper solutionSimilarly to what stated in his earlier judgment in 20C Fox v BT (No 2), Arnold J took the view that "the rightholders should pay the costs of an unopposed application ... [read post]
Mishan (T/A Emson) v Hozelock & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 871 Since Arnold LJ’s elevation to the Court of Appeal in 2019, he and Floyd LJ have heard about 11 cases together, spanning a mixture of areas of law, some patents cases and some not. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 10:00 am by Walsh & Walsh, P.C.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed SB 1370, which was enacted in response to a 1999 federal court ruling (Lett v. [read post]
17 Aug 2010, 9:42 am by Meg Martin
Arnold, Judge.Representing Dougherty: Diane M. [read post]
15 May 2014, 11:40 am
 On the principle of the matter, he stated at 111:In my judgment this reasoning [from Rohm & Haas] is persuasive, and it is supported by the subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeal in Virgin v Premium. [read post]
8 Jan 2015, 4:37 am by Matthew R. Arnold, Esq.
” An Ohio state court disagreed, ruling last year that Auto-Owners had no duty to defend G & K under the policy. [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 3:44 am
” Birss J endorsed Arnold J’s approach in reaching a similar conclusion in HTC v Gemalto [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat). [read post]
31 May 2016, 2:14 pm by Peter Groves
It further argued that it had become the owner of the painting, but instead of disposing of  it at the local tip as one might expect the repairer of a defaced wall to do, they shipped it to the United States where it was to be auctioned.Mr Justice Arnold had no difficulty in deciding that the painting had become part of the fabric of the building and therefore was the property of the landlord (who had transferred ownership to the Foundation). [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 8:45 am by David Wagner
This post was written by Lawrence Demase, Douglas Everette, Robert Frank, Arnold Grant, Todd Maiden, Jennifer Smokelin, Robert Vilter and David Wagner. [read post]