Search for: "BATES v. GOODE" Results 1 - 20 of 210
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jul 2007, 11:18 am
Based upon an apparently unprecedented reading of certain language in Bates v. [read post]
23 Oct 2007, 5:06 am
The above title would be a better headline for the article in Law.com’s Legal Technology section, which carries the headline Good Law Firms Turning Virtual instead. [read post]
25 Sep 2017, 9:49 pm by Ben Reeve-Lewis
Completely bonkers of course but good for a chuckle over a Hob Nob. [read post]
2 Dec 2006, 11:03 am
  Since I spent much of this week putting together my syllabus for my Constitutional Law I class next semester, which includes Judge Bates's decision in Public Citizen v. [read post]
6 Apr 2018, 4:12 am by Edith Roberts
Good Judgment offers court-watchers an opportunity to forecast the outcome of Trump v. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 8:04 am
 So, with apologies to any readers who may have been awaiting it with bated [please note correct spelling] breath, here's the story.The judgment referred to above is that of the Second Chamber of the Court of Justice the European Union (CJEU) in Case C‑98/13, Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA, a request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Supreme Court), Denmark [a big Katpat to the CJEU, in dispensing with an… [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 12:41 am by Tessa Shepperson
Here is a roundup of all our blog posts from September:- Friday 3rd September Landlord Law Newsround #210 Our first Newsround for September Wednesday 8th September Rent Repayment Orders and the case of Rakusen v. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 12:41 am by Tessa Shepperson
Here is a roundup of all our blog posts from September:- Friday 3rd September Landlord Law Newsround #210 Our first Newsround for September Wednesday 8th September Rent Repayment Orders and the case of Rakusen v. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 10:31 am
The answer became clearer this month when the 9th Circuit opined on Stiefel v. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 1:32 pm
There's also a long, rather technical footnote (br. at 46 n.12) about why Bates v. [read post]