Search for: "Badger v. Badger" Results 141 - 160 of 332
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jun 2015, 4:30 am
  Examples of both such highs and such lows reside in the recent case of Ezeb v. [read post]
21 May 2015, 5:56 am
The IP Federation's offices are conveniently situated near Farringdon and Chancery Lane Under­ground stations which means that, while The Old Nick is within walking distance, you will definitely need that refreshing pint of Badger by the time you get there. [read post]
20 May 2015, 5:15 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Crandall, 254 AD2d at 635 [where children expressed a clear desire to have no contact with imprisoned criminal parent and there was evidence of inappropriate communication from parent to children]; Badger v. [read post]
19 May 2015, 5:12 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The Court in Matter of Curtis "N" (288 AD2d 774 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 610 [2002]) relied on a line of Family Court Article 6 (custody/visitation) cases finding that incarceration alone does not render visitation with the imprisoned parent inappropriate (Badger v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 9:05 pm by Walter Olson
Richard Epstein on King v. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 11:43 am
Badger Acquisition of Tampa LLC, 983 So. 2d 1175, 1183-1184 (Fla. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 2:30 pm
On the same blog, IPKat team member Jeremy notes an extempore decision of Mr Justice Arnold on the difficult question of controlling uncapped costs in patent proceedings that are more easily afforded by one party than another, in Canon v Badger. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 11:09 am by Lyle Denniston
”  That one comment seemed to sum up the quite poor prospects for the sign-regulating ordinance at issue in Reed v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 6:56 am by Joy Waltemath
Comments from coworkers on several occasions that she was faking illness to avoid work did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment (Price v. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 4:55 pm by Adam Kielich
The recent appeal decided by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Perret v. [read post]