Search for: "Holder v. Smith"
Results 1 - 20
of 572
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Inst. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2024, 7:28 am
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (known casually as “green-card holders”) can apply for a visa for their immediate relatives. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
”[15] The court found that Third Circuit precedents, Hays and Co v. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 8:58 am
Holder v. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 12:30 pm
Holder. [read post]
14 Mar 2024, 10:37 am
Earth, Wind & Fire IP, LLC v. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 7:29 am
For example, in Atari Interactive, Inc., v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:16 pm
Cir. 2023)Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am
Lash's response to the Amar brothers' amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
As I explained in one of my earlier posts, several or all of the Justices might be inclined to decide the case on some ground that doesn’t require the Court to decide whether Donald Trump is eligible to be President, if such an “off-ramp” solution is legally available. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
For present purposes, however, the important point to understand is that Trump’s primary merits argument, to which he devotes the first 13 pages of the Argument section of his brief (pp. 20-33), concerns only the second, middle “Officials Clause,” which identifies the current and former office-holders to whom Section 3 potentially applies, rather than the government positions that an insurrectionist or rebel is ineligible to occupy going forward. [read post]
29 Dec 2023, 2:52 pm
July 19, 2007) (concluding that the "defendants' description of [the plaintiff] as a racist" was, as a matter of law, "an opinion and thus is not actionable"); Smith v. [read post]
29 Dec 2023, 11:00 am
While the readers may remember that in InterDigital v Lenovo [2023] EWHC 539 (Pat) Mellor J adopted an exclusionary approach with comparables, disregarding most and eventually relied on a single prior licence LG 2017 to derive all the rates in that Judgment, Marcus Smith J differed from that approach and considered that at least in this case, the comparables only have value if an inclusive approach is taken. [read post]
24 Nov 2023, 7:38 am
In this post, Pippa Borton, Associate at CMS, previews the decision awaited from the Supreme Court in Kireeva v Bedzhamov. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 11:17 am
But the plan treats holders of insured and uninsured asbestos personal-injury claims differently. [read post]
21 Sep 2023, 6:05 am
” The Court next applied the same logic in Smith v. [read post]
9 Sep 2023, 4:22 am
German national courts would presumably apply the Sisvel v. [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 5:44 am
Every year after Labor Day, I take a step back to survey the most important current trends and developments in the world of Directors’ and Officers’ liability and insurance. [read post]
1 Sep 2023, 1:32 am
If they proposed some Huawei v. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 2:34 pm
Tendering of a cheque can amount to (conditional) payment, if the cheque is honoured (Felix Hadley & Co v Hadley (1898) 2 Ch 681 ), and if so, counts as payment at the date the cheque is tendered (Homes v Smith (2000) Lloyds LR 139 ). [read post]
