Search for: "Ramsay v. Ramsay"
Results 61 - 80
of 123
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jan 2014, 5:38 pm
Also, going back to today’s big topic, we have a piece by Anna Gallegos up on LXBN on the Supreme Court defining “clothes” in Sandifer v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 5:38 pm
Also, going back to today’s big topic, we have a piece by Anna Gallegos up on LXBN on the Supreme Court defining “clothes” in Sandifer v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:30 pm
ACA Tax Credits Under Review: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in King v. [read post]
12 May 2015, 5:30 pm
– Illinois lawyer Shawn Collins of The Collins Law Firm on the firm’s blog, Pollution Law Watch “Consent” in the Wake of State v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 5:30 pm
– Roseville, MN attorney Daniel Koewler of Ramsay Law Firm on the firm’s blog, Minnesota DWI Defense Reaping What You Sow – City of Dallas Sued by Trinity East Energy – Dallas lawyer Charles Sartain of Looper Reed & McGraw on Energy And The Law The Lesson of EEOC v. [read post]
24 Apr 2010, 11:03 am
, 1982 SC (HL) 114, Furniss v. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 4:26 am
It requires considerable input of computer expertise, but it is possible, as the case of AMP v Persons Unknown (cleverly taken in the Technology and Construction Court) illustrates. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 1:25 am
Today’s live blog team comprises Emma Boffey, Sarah Stodart, Rose Falconer, Amy Ramsay, Rachel Todd and Emma NcNally, all of CMS. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 11:33 am
Arner’s warning to Ryan Ramsay. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 4:44 pm
In Murray v. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 1:56 pm
In Schroeder v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 1:00 am
HMRC argued that the Ramsay principle applies to the arrangements, with the result that the exemption does not apply, either because they are schemes for payment of cash bonuses or because the forfeiture provisions must be ignored as commercially irrelevant contingencies. [read post]
9 Sep 2009, 11:21 am
Ramsay, Charles A. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 8:23 am
This case certainly clarifies the law with respect to the surreptitious interception of documents in divorce proceedings, following upon the June 2010 decision of Imerman v. [read post]
14 Apr 2022, 10:51 am
A recent Superior Court decision highlights the dangers of poor meeting notices – these meetings were essentially dead before they hit the ground. 2030516 Ontario Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 5:34 am
He referred to the following factors as being relevant to the decision: whilst the transfer of ownership in software rights indicated that some of the LLP’s expenditure had been incurred on acquiring such rights, it did not necessarily mean that the whole of the expenditure had been used for that purpose; the fact that market value of the software was “very materially below” the amount the LLPs paid was not determinative, but the question of valuation was not… [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 4:50 am
AMP v Persons unknown - read judgment If you lose your mobile phone with highly confidential and private information on it, all may not be lost. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 9:04 am
Ramsay, 159 F.Supp. 2d 873 (D. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 10:20 am
Booker in 2005 ([origin.www.supremecourtus.gov]) and Cunningham v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 3:18 pm
Peter Ramsay Q.C. and the project manager was Greg Blue Q.C. [read post]
