Search for: "Figures v. Figures" Results 81 - 100 of 14,920
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Dec 2022, 10:05 am by Giles Peaker
Eastpoint Block A RTM Company Ltd v Otubaga (2022) UKUT 319 (LC) Eastpoint are a right to manage company for a block of flats. [read post]
3 Dec 2022, 7:08 am
 Pix Credit hereWhile interest in this case, HKSAR v Lai Man Ling [2022] 4 HKC 410, [2022] HKDC 355, reported in September 2022, may be diminishing, its relevance requires sustained examination. [read post]
1 Dec 2022, 6:01 pm
   "Diaz-Canel said on Sunday that Algeria and Russia had agreed to provide some regular oil supplies on top of the reduced amounts arriving from ally Venezuela, but gave no figures. [read post]
1 Dec 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Justice John Marshall Harlan II in Poe v. [read post]
30 Nov 2022, 6:35 pm by Chip Merlin
Please note, it is Liberty Mutual’s continued position that the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Kellogg v. [read post]
30 Nov 2022, 5:00 am by jonathanturley
She was fired because she exercised free speech in an internal meeting on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 1:55 pm by Amy Howe
When Prelogar responded that they would not, Roberts reminded her of the court’s recent decision in Biden v. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 4:21 am by Daniel Schwartz
The Office of Legislative Research (OLR) — one of my favorite underappreciated government agencies — recently released an entire memo of the subject that’s worth a read for anyone trying to figure out the scope of a particular law. [read post]
28 Nov 2022, 3:31 pm by Sarah
Get Help With the FHE & Beyond Need help figuring out the FHE, FEIE, or just completing your taxes in general? [read post]
25 Nov 2022, 10:57 pm
Full report: Bailii.BASKYS v. [read post]
24 Nov 2022, 1:35 am by Nedim Malovic
Furthermore, the intervener, before the Cancellation Division, did also not refer to the lack of distinctive character of the contested mark or the corresponding provision, but claimed solely that the contested mark was deceptive and had been registered in bad faith.It is settled case law that pleas must be interpreted in terms of their substance rather than of their classification (Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista v EUIPO (T-221/18) EU:T:2019:382). [read post]