Search for: "Whitehead v. Whitehead" Results 41 - 60 of 222
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Oct 2010, 3:00 am by John Day
§ 15.27 Strict Liability Cases  The Case: Whitehead v. [read post]
11 May 2009, 3:04 pm
Heuston of Frese, Hansen, Anderson, Anderson, Heuston & Whitehead, P.A., in Melbourne, Florida, was on the winning side of Belanger v. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 7:44 am
" is the question raised by Brian Whitehead and Richard Kempner (Kempner & Partners LLP) in a current intelligence note for the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, published ahead of time here on the jiplp weblog: this piece reviews the ruling in Schütz (UK) Limited v Werit UK Limited, Protechna SA [2010] EWHC 660 (Pat) there is no free-standing right to repair a patented product in UK patent law. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 3:58 am
Enforcing disciplinary settlement agreements Lyons v Whitehead, 2 AD3d 638 The Appellate Division's decision in the Lyons case demonstrates the importance of making certain that the terms and conditions of a disciplinary settlement agreement clearly indicate the expectations of the parties. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 3:56 am
A settlement of a disciplinary action should be memorialize in writingWinkler v Kingston Housing Auth., 259 AD2d 819A public employee who faces disciplinary charges may enter into a settlement agreement that disposes the charges, so long as the waiver is knowingly and intelligently undertaken and serves as the consideration for the curtailment of pending disciplinary proceedings [see Whitehead v State of New York Department of Mental Hygiene, 71 AD2d 653]. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 9:59 pm
By Donald Zuhn -- With oral argument in the rehearing en banc of Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 1:56 am by INFORRM
In AB Bank Ltd v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC ([2016]EWHC 2082 (Comm)), Teare J set aside a Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) made against a bank in the UAE on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to serve the order on the bank out of the jurisdiction because none of the permitted jurisdictional gateways under Practice Direction 6B to the Civil Procedure Rules were applicable. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 1:59 pm
*********Ken Lammers at CrimLaw has this post on Whitehead v. [read post]