Search for: "Nichols Construction Corporation"
Results 21 - 40
of 47
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jul 2010, 2:11 am
Thus, if the true meaning of a document is in issue, the fact that the construction preferred by the judge is plausible does not prevent an appellate court from deciding the matter for itself. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 12:00 am
When there is a time bar, then, as Lord Nicholls observed in Valentines Properties Limited v Huntco Corporation Limited [2001] UKPC 14, at [20] “Inherent in a time limit is the notion that the parties are drawing a line. [read post]
24 Dec 2013, 5:45 am
Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd., [2001] 1 All E.R. 700 (H.L.), at p. 706, per Lord Hoffmann; see also Nichols v. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 2:06 pm
We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 9:56 pm
INTA filed a brief in Nokia Corporation v. [read post]
29 May 2018, 4:05 pm
The failure to do so since November 2016 has frustrated the true meaning and construction and purpose of the scheme in sections 34-42 and frustrates the will of Parliament. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 6:44 am
Nichols: discnt. parklands Last Act: 09/16/09 signed chap.449450
A8043
Cusick -- Provides that certain newspapers in Richmond county may charge the regularly established classified advertising rate for publication of legal notices BLURB : CPLR. pub rate Richmond cty Last Act: 09/16/09 signed chap.450451
A8097
Galef -- Permits the Mount Olivet Baptist Church to file an application for a real property tax exemption BLURB : Mount Olivet Baptist Church Last… [read post]
23 Sep 2010, 7:55 pm
“The list of plaintiffs include many trade associations and corporations that would be affected by the rules or have to comply. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 8:51 am
RJR has promoted Eclipse as being a part of its "corporate stewardship" program to manufacturer the safest cigarette possible. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 8:51 am
RJR has promoted Eclipse as being a part of its "corporate stewardship" program to manufacturer the safest cigarette possible. [read post]
5 Nov 2007, 12:11 am
Nichols has asked the Georgia Supreme Court to order Judge Hilton M. [read post]
17 Dec 2011, 6:36 am
We can find no clearer statement of judicial antipathy to expert witness advocacy than the famous copyright decision by Judge Learned Hand in Nichols v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 9:03 pm
There is no powerfully constructive technology that is not also powerfully destructive in another direction, just as there is no great idea that cannot be greatly perverted for great harm… This should be the first law of technological expectation: The greater the promise of a new technology, the greater its potential for harm as well. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 6:49 am
Nichols (Wharton/Penn).? [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:52 am
This was approved by Sullivan CJ in the Irish Supreme Court in Sinclair v Gogarty [1937] IR 377 (see also Gallagher v Tuohy (1924) 58 ILTR 134 (Murnaghan J); Connolly v Radio Telifís Eireann [1991] 2 IR 446 (Carroll J); Reynolds v Malocco [1999] 2 IR 203, [1999] 1 ILRM 289, [1998] IEHC 175 (11 December 1998) (Kelly J)); and it represents the law in Australia (Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46 (28 September 2006)), Canada (Champagne v Collège… [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 3:00 am
Maharaja Appliances (Spicy IP) Delhi High Court rules on section 8 and 47 of the Patents Act: Lack of disclosure under s8 = no interim injunction: Chemtura Corporation v Union of India & Ors (Spicy IP) (Spicy IP) Copyright access for the disabled and collaborative IP policy (Spicy IP) Bumpy road ahead – Indian government eases norms in tech transfer from overseas firms (Spicy IP) Israel Judicial Review Officer rejects request for summary dismissal and clarifies requirements… [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 4:00 am
San Jose Spotlight – Jana Kadah | Published: 3/16/2023 Like corporate lobbyists, nonprofit leaders meet regularly with San Jose officials to influence policy decisions. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 11:53 am
© Max Kennerly. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 4:27 am
” I understand this time around the government is arguing the names are “commercial” because they “uniquely identify” “proprietary” “corporate identities. [read post]
