Search for: "Cunningham v. Cunningham" Results 261 - 280 of 808
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Mar 2015, 3:03 pm by Andrew Hamm
This morning the Court heard oral argument in King v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 5:02 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Citing People v Weaver (12 NY3d 433) and United States v Jones (132 S Ct 945}, the Court of Appeals ruled that the State agency's action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions and “did not require a warrant” but “on the facts of this case such surveillance was  unreasonable”The decision TLC decision is posted on the Internet at: Cunningham… [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 2:49 am by Amy Howe
  At 10 a.m. the Court will hear oral arguments in King v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 3:18 pm by Benjamin Wittes
The New York Times celebrated the publication of the book in its ArtsBeat column, describing it as follows: Michael Cunningham, Joshua Ferris, Nicole Krauss and Lili Taylor will be among the participants at a reading in New York on Jan. 26 in honor of the publication of “Guantánamo Diary,” described as the first and only diary written by a still-detained prisoner at Guantánamo Bay to be publicly released. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 8:34 am by S
In West, the Court of Appeal relied on an earlier decision of the TCC (AXA Insurance UK Plc v Cunningham Lindsay UK [2007] EWHC 3023 (TCC)) as authority for the proposition that the maximum award of general damages for distress and inconvenience arising under a contract was £3,000. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 6:42 am by Clara Spera
Jack entered the conversation a little later, calling into question the “ law enforcement v. war distinction” in the first instance. [read post]
10 Jan 2015, 11:07 am by Jack Goldsmith
I agree with much of what Wells says in response to Bryan Cunningham’s piece on War v. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 5:47 am
Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 880 P.2d 431 (Oregon Supreme Court 1994). [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 10:29 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here a motion for default in the matter captioned Cunningham v. [read post]