Search for: "Green v. Carr" Results 1 - 20 of 64
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Apr 2007, 3:32 am
Filed April 13, 2007 - Opinion by Judge Irma RakerThe Court of Appeals considered whether, under the Workers' Compensation Act, a claimant whose hearing has been damaged as a result of his occupation is entitled to have hearing aids provided by his employer/insurer, even though he does not meet the criteria for monetary compensation under the Act. [read post]
10 Aug 2016, 8:40 am
Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221-222, 616 P.2d 628 (Washington Supreme Court 1980). [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 2:40 pm by Kent Scheidegger
  That is what Jeffrey Green tried to do representing Gleason and Jonathan Carr, claiming that the Kansas Supreme Court did not really decide this case under the Eighth Amendment but instead under state law, which the U.S. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 2:02 am by Charon QC
Useful reading: On Sedley v Sumption, here’s Sumption’s FA Mann lecture from last year: Sedley’s LRB article in response Whigs and Hunters. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 2:34 pm by Charon QC
I can tell you that David Allen Green and Carl Gardner are at the table…. waiting to discuss libel, privacy, hyperinjunctions, Rough Justice – Miscarriages of Justice, The Lautsi v Italy crucifix case, and we may even have time to discuss expert immunity from suit…and interns. [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 6:46 am
One case cited on similar facts as 3637 Green Rd (EAC Properties, LLC v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 8:35 am by Rory Little
Gleason and Carr — October 7:  On Wednesday, October 7, two companion capital cases will be argued: Kansas v. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 9:14 am
Never Too Late 183 [week ending 18 February] Mr Justice Carr's L'Oreal v RN Ventures decision bristles with warnings on Actavis v Lilly claim interpretation, equivalents and prosecution history (Parts I and II) | Can Wenzhou and cigarette lighters tell us something about why there are IP rights? [read post]
3 Mar 2017, 7:25 am
  The judge also cautioned that the purpose of the declarations in the present proceedings is different to the motivations for the declarations sought in Arrow Generics Limited v Merck & Co. [read post]