Search for: "Layman v. State"
Results 61 - 80
of 186
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Aug 2014, 6:53 am
This has been seen different in the United States, as under the Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service decision (more on which can be found here) effort alone won't give a work protectability under copyright. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 1:05 pm
In an extremely well-written decision the Tenth Circuit (2-1) affirmed the complete dismissal of Caplinger v. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 4:03 am
Scott v. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 7:28 pm
Where testator dies seized of real property in several states the courts of each state may construe the will as to the realty situated in its own state (Matter of Good's Will, 304 N.Y. 110, 116, 106 N.E.2d 36, 39, supra; In re Ellis' Estate, Sur., 139 N.Y.S.2d 640; De Vaughn v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 8:57 am
Munro v. [read post]
1 Aug 2013, 8:26 pm
Jones v. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 5:59 pm
As our Supreme Court stated in White v. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 3:30 am
Carvalho v. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 12:00 am
The Wright court then explained that in a layman/expert relationship, the layman does not have a duty to double-check the expert’s work. [read post]
16 Dec 2014, 9:00 pm
Category: Civil Procedure By: John Kirkpatrick, Contributor TitleAnticancer, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 9:18 pm
, the decision of Costs Judge Master Campbell in Schneider v Door2door PTS Ltd [2011] EWHC 90210 (Costs) is worth reviewing. [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 4:38 am
App. 369, 754 S.E.2d 451 (2014) (citing State v. [read post]
17 Mar 2023, 11:48 am
From Davis v. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 9:39 pm
United States, 530 U.S. 428, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000); United States v. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 9:01 am
In Guido v. [read post]
9 Mar 2014, 5:03 pm
Merck v Merck: what you think ... so far. [read post]
3 May 2011, 8:39 pm
Defendants rely upon the Connecticut Supreme Court's Rice v. [read post]
1 Apr 2021, 10:08 am
Designs, Ltd. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 6:49 am
Kenniston v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 10:03 am
See, e.g., Rutledge v. [read post]
