Search for: "In Re Barrett & Co." Results 101 - 120 of 180
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Apr 2009, 10:38 am
Ted Stevens, who lost his bid for re-election just days after a jury found that he had lied about gifts and home renovations. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
The basis of the order requiring Facebook to identify TVO was the decision of the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, [1973] UKHL 6 (26 June 1973); but it “is a power which for good reasons must be sparingly used” (Megaleasing v Barrett (No 2) [1993] ILRM 497, 503 (Finlay CJ). [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:09 pm by Eugene Volokh
My students Nate Barrett, Garry Padrta, and Paulette Rodriguez-Lopez worked on the brief, and Daniel P. [read post]
6 Apr 2014, 9:24 am by S2KM Limited
Cynthia Barrett discussed "Post-Windsor Issues for LGBT Couples & Children" from a special needs perspective. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 10:00 pm by Jim Hassett
Lawyers can immediately start using them to plan a new matter without re-inventing the wheel. [read post]
8 Jan 2021, 1:17 pm by Ilya Somin
In an interesting recent post, co-blogger Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman argue that President Trump cannot be impeached and convicted for his role in inciting the riot at the Capitol because he was engaging in First Amendment-protected speech. [read post]
31 Mar 2008, 3:33 am
Haddad reviewed sample case studies from a book she co-authors. [read post]
19 May 2022, 9:05 pm by Sam Wong
Atkins (D), co-author of the bill, called the ruling “disappointing” and said that “more women on corporate boards means better decisions and businesses that outperform the competition. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 10:10 pm by 1 Crown Office Row
Joe Barrett This post first appeared on the 11KBW Education Law Blog. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 4:20 pm by INFORRM
This is a Norwich Pharmacal order, named for the case in which it was first granted (see Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, [1973] UKHL 6 (26 June 1973); see also The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd [2013] 1 All ER 928, [2012] 1 WLR 3333, [2012] UKSC 55 (21 November 2012)), and the Supreme Court has affirmed that it forms part of Irish law (see Megaleasing v Barrett (No 2) [1993] ILRM 497; Ryanair v Unister [2013]… [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 3:00 pm
Cooper, Tom Tomorrow, Judi Barrett, Christopher Myers...and many more! [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 3:34 pm by Eric Schweibenz
D618,678 (the ‘678 patent), 7,479,949 (the ‘949 patent), RE 41,922 (the ‘922 patent), and 7,912,501 (the ‘501 patent). [read post]
13 May 2010, 12:15 pm by Erin Miller
 Rutledge is best known, however, for his towering dissent in In re Yamashita. [read post]