Search for: "Simon v. Akin"
Results 1 - 20
of 38
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2023, 6:49 pm
Introduction In a recent decision of Kremler v Simon Fraser University, 2023 BCSC 805 dismissing an application for an interlocutory injunction, the British Columbia Supreme Court confirms the high threshold that an applicant is required to meet in relation to the merits of their claim on such an application. [read post]
4 Jun 2007, 3:08 pm
The following opinion recap is by Marcus Smith, a summer associate at Akin Gump and a student at Yale Law School. [read post]
24 May 2022, 4:00 pm
v=iBkIuY0bvjM [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 4:49 am
In Marino v. [read post]
15 Apr 2007, 2:20 pm
Leonard Simon of San Diego will argue for the respondents. [read post]
3 Feb 2010, 10:28 am
Simon Bieber and Jennifer Imrie On December 14, 2009, Justice van Rensburg of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice handed down two related rulings in the Silver v. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 9:08 am
Doe v. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 3:00 am
Goldstein, of Akin Gump in Washington and of this blog, will argue for the respondents. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 6:50 am
[Disclosure: Akin Gump represented the respondent in the case.] [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm
Simon and Woe v. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 7:05 am
”, although it might be said that the services provided by ISPs are akin to a utility regarded as a basic necessity by the vast majority of the population, whereas the group of consumers buying the luxury wares of Cartier are a much smaller and, on average, better-resourced crowd! [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 8:07 am
Vidal v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 9:30 am
(Wesch v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 9:30 am
(Wesch v. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 7:45 pm
He wishes to thank Aaron Cosbey and Simon Lester for helpful comments on an early draft of this post. [read post]
13 May 2020, 11:11 am
In Naruto v. [read post]
12 Jan 2013, 7:35 am
” (Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 10:05 am
Simon, 51 Ohio St. 233; State v. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 12:28 am
First, in relation to the EU legal system, Simon Crowther reports on the Court of Appeal’s decision to refer the case of ZZ v Home Office to the Court of Justice of the European Union asking whether EU citizens are entitled under EU law to see the “essence of the grounds against them“ when facing exclusion in the name of national security. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 4:44 pm
No, says last Friday's Eighth Circuit decision in Craig v. [read post]
