Search for: "State v. Holderness"
Results 321 - 340
of 8,211
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Mar 2014, 3:44 pm
., APPELLEES v. [read post]
10 Jan 2014, 11:27 am
In United States v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 2:20 am
Rien Broekstra and Gaëlle Béquet of Brinkhof (Amsterdam), who represent Wiko in the parallel Dutch litigation, are the authors.On 30 October, the higher regional court (“OLG”) of Karlsruhe handed down its first decision on the merits on FRAND (case number 6 U 183/16) since the landmark CJEU ruling in Huawei v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 2:48 am
When making directions pursuant to s 497A of the Education Act 1996 (as inserted by s 8 of the School Standard and Framework Act 1998) to remove an office holder, the Secretary of State could, in certain circumstances, put the wider interests of child safeguarding above the interest of an individual office holder to be treated fairly. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:58 am
It is not for a UK court to go further into that conclusion, said Lord Mance, which may yet be challenged in further United States litigation. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 1:15 pm
Something like: "For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied. [read post]
14 Mar 2018, 2:00 am
Prior to enactment of the law, trade-secret holders could only sue in state court for misappropriation of their trade secrets. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 9:31 pm
Robert Nattress & Associates v. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 8:11 am
”) State ex rel. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 12:24 pm
The court dismissed claims under certain state consumer statutes, as well as claims based on the laws of states in which no plaintiffs lived. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 1:01 pm
Citizens v. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 2:40 am
In its decision on the case Johannes Gerrit Cornelis van Schaik v Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Para 21 the Court has ruled that: ...Article 4 of the directive further provides that the roadworthiness tests, within the meaning of the directive, are to be carried out by the State or by bodies or establishments designated and directly supervised by the State. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 5:00 am
In Lawrence v. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 5:40 am
United States, 507 U.S. 234, 242 (1993)). [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 9:35 am
The United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Missouri v. [read post]
30 Oct 2014, 4:15 am
In Nguyen v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 7:30 am
In Creative Ventures, LLC v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 9:22 am
Wasserman Rajec* In Impression Products, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 1:58 pm
So he's had seven additional years in the United States. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 2:45 pm
Dist. v. [read post]
