Search for: "PITMAN v. STATE"
Results 61 - 80
of 80
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jun 2015, 11:43 pm
FTC More recently, the United States Supreme Court decided a case called North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 7:28 am
The court also granted class certification, for settlement purposes; approved a proposed notice to class members; and signed off on plaintiffs’ firm Outten & Golden as class counsel (Ballinger v Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc, dba Condé Nast Publications, December 29, 2014, Pitman, H). [read post]
24 Jul 2013, 3:56 pm
Attorney Sharon Cohen Levin, asset forfeiture unit chief in the southern district of New York, describes the government's investigation in court papers filed in United States v. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 6:19 pm
The Omnipresent State Sector 552 2. [read post]
26 Sep 2012, 5:39 am
http://bit.ly/QeYSVx (Michael Schmidt) Proper Wildcard Searching: Why You Should Give a Dam* – http://bit.ly/Pjc34V (Doug Austin) Radically Reinvent The Review Process - http://bit.ly/Q2x6LK (George Kiersted) Rambus ‘Shred Days’ Ruled Spoliation, $397M Judgment Reduced - http://bit.ly/Pn446U (Jan Wolfe) Reasonable Particularity And Social Network eDiscovery - http://bit.ly/P0Kqxr (IT-Lex) State Judge Imposes $300K… [read post]
27 May 2012, 5:42 pm
UN member states asked the UK about ‘super-injunctions’, online freedom of expression and the defamation bill: “The UK’s representative at the review, Lord McNally, responded to the questions and recommendations regarding defamation and its impact on freedom of expression by stating that ‘his baby’ aimed to get the balance right between a free media and the right of the individual to privacy, and that it was regarded as a ‘good law’… [read post]
23 May 2012, 6:37 am
Sir Charles Gray, sitting as a Commissioner, with two Jurats (of which, more later), entered judgment for the plaintiffs on the basis that the cartoon was not defamatory (Pitman v Jersey Evening Post [2012] JRC 92). [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 7:57 am
Pitman v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 8:39 pm
In AEI Ltd v Phonographic Performance Limited [1999] 1 WLR 1507, Lord Woolf MR stated: “…it is no longer necessary for a party to have acted unreasonably or improperly to be deprived of his costs of a particular issue on which he has failed. [read post]
4 May 2011, 3:02 am
Instead, it holds tight to People v. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 7:22 am
Pitman, No. 37453, is: “Under the elements test established by United States v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 9:54 pm
” • Referring to this judgment Longmore LJ, in Summit Property Ltd v Pitmans (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 2020, at paragraph 16, approved this view and went further: “In my judgment, it is also no longer necessary for a party to have acted unreasonably or improperly before he can be required to pay the costs of the other party of a particular issue on which he (the first party) has failed. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 7:46 am
" NorthPoint Technology, LTD. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 3:52 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 79 (15 February 2010) High Court (Administrative Court) Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 206 (Admin) (15 February 2010) High Court (Chancery Division) Stream Healthcare (London) Ltd v Pitman Education and Training Ltd [2010] EWHC 216 (Ch) (15 February 2010) Rolfe &… [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 9:09 am
[See pp. 165-204, on Vásquez.] [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 5:51 am
United States v. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 6:30 am
Pitman Mfg. [read post]
4 Mar 2008, 12:37 am
The State (Trinidad And Tobago) [2008] UKPC 16 (3 March 2008) Knight v. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 6:52 am
Proceedings of the Electoral Commission and of the Two Houses of Congress in Joint Meeting Relative to the Count of Electoral Votes Cast December 6, 1876, for the Presidential Term
Commencing March 4, 1877
1 v. (1877) United States. [read post]
