Search for: "In Re Interest of Michael B." Results 41 - 60 of 1,158
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Sep 2018, 10:00 am by The Sader Law Firm
This is syndicated content that was originally published on AVVO.com by Attorney Michael J. [read post]
15 Nov 2007, 10:00 am
Michael Hassen of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, who publishes the Class Action Defense Blog put up an interesting post last month about a case called Guevarra v. [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 5:45 pm
Michael Alexander , a 4-page petition on rehearing, Judge Brown writes:We conclude that Querrey is not instructive because, as Alexander concedes, Querrey did not involve a successor in interest situation. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 2:52 pm by Adam Levitin
 It's actually really interesting from a contract doctrine perspective (besides being of prurient interest). [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 8:21 am by Daniel Richardson
By Michael TarrantIn re HS-122, 2011 VT 138 (mem.).What do you get when you add one cup of state property tax adjustment records to a quart of public records laws, and then blend with one heaping spoonful of a request to see those records? [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 9:05 am by Dennis Crouch
The pending Federal Circuit mandamus action of In re TC Heartland involves an interesting legal question that has now been fully briefed. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 6:00 am by Michael B. Stack
The high court indicated resolution of the issue was a matter of statutory construction…” Read more…     Author Michael B. [read post]
22 May 2023, 4:00 am by Administrator
Michael Geist The Lean Law FirmE182: Want a more relaxing vacation? [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 9:39 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Start to be very clear about the structure we’re building and the societal interests at stake. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 6:45 pm by Colin O'Keefe
With that in mind, HR Legalist has an interesting post today on mandatory flu vaccines in the workplace. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 8:14 am by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento
An interesting issue in both these cases is whether the consent received by the artists from the trademark owners of Prada and Playboy will affect the reading of whether these projects are art or advertising (or both, in which case they’re still ultimately advertising). [read post]