9 comments / Add your comment below

1. V.K Mehrotra, J.:— By his judgment dated December 21, , the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, convicted Hausila under Section I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life in sessions trial No. of (State v. Hausila). Hence the present appeal. 2. It is said that on the night between March 1 and 2, a.

   Reply
2. Finkelman v Klaus - NY Slip Op (U) [*1] Finkelman v Klaus NY Slip Op (U) [17 Misc 3d (A)] Decided on November 28, Supreme Court, Nassau County Bucaria, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law §

   Reply
3. KHUDADOS v HAYDEN AND OTHERS [] Lloyd's Rep PN 4 COURT OF APPEAL Before Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Wilson and Mr Justice Holman. Barrister – Professional conduct – Duty to court – Duty to other party – Whether duty to draw the court’s attention to unfavourable evidence.

   Reply
4. R v Cogan and Leak. Participation Leak charged with rape for mens rea, friend acquitted for actus reus. Touati & Gilfillan v HMA. Art and Part Murder was only foreseeable from the one with sword Other acquitted of the murer. Kabalu v HMA. Art and Part Adopting preceding injuries. R v Blaue. Causation.

   Reply
5. Components, Inc. v. Barton, No. C, WL (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, )). The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants default judgment against the defendant on the plaintiff's Lanham Act trademark infringement and false designation of origin claims arising out of the defendant's copying of the plaintiff's bags.

   Reply
6. Hylan Assoc. v Polshak - NY Slip Op (U) [*1] Hylan Assoc. v Polshak NY Slip Op (U) [17 Misc 3d (A)] Decided on October 22, Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law §

   Reply
7. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

   Reply
8. General Tire, Inc., 92 Hawai`i 1, 9, P.2d , (), in denying discovery insofar as it was germane only to those claims. See HRCP Rule 26(b)(1); Lothspeich v. Sam Fong, 6 Haw. App. , , P.2d , (). As for Plaintiffs' attempt to link the discovery sought to a purported element of "actual malice" in their.

   Reply
9. United States v. Anne Jane Kulhanek, et al. On December 8, the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania released its opinion in United States zierisadpaubodishimeterlaikesand.xyzinfo Jane Kulhanek, et al, zierisadpaubodishimeterlaikesand.xyzinfo 2nd (Google Scholar, with links).[The Google Scholar link to the case report sometimes breaks.

   Reply