Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983), a similar case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Computer Edge Pty. Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (1986), 65 A.L.R. 33, a similar case heard by the High Court of Australia; International Business Machines Corporation v.
Case name Citation Date decided Smith v. United States (1959) 360 U.S. 1: 1959: United States v. Atl. Refining Co. 360 U.S. 19: 1959: La. Power & Light Co. v. City of ...
Fortex Group Ltd (in Receivership and Liquidation) v MacIntosh; Court: Court of Appeal of New Zealand: Full case name: Fortex Group Ltd (in Receivership and Liquidation) v MacIntosh : Decided: 30 March 1998: Citation [1998] 3 NZLR 171: Court membership; Judges sitting: Gault, Henry J, Keith, Blanchard J, Tipping
McIntosh v. United States , 601 U.S. 330 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a court's failure to enter a preliminary order imposing criminal forfeiture before sentencing does not necessarily bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing.
A week after signing with Matchroom, the Usyk vs. Bellew fight was announced to take place on 10 November at the Manchester Arena. [14] [15] Bellew's guaranteed purse for the fight was £4 million. [16] Speaking in the build up to the bout Bellew said "I feel fantastic. Fat boy is in shape. Usyk is in the deep end. There will be war.
Case 1:10-cv-01067-RBW-DAR Document 212 Filed 12/14/12 Page 8 of 38 2 led the Project’s extensive and transparent approval process fully complied with all applicable
Anthony Lewis Bellew (born 30 November 1982) is an English former professional boxer who competed from 2007 to 2018, and has since worked as a boxing analyst and commentator. He held the WBC cruiserweight title from 2016 to 2017.
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that a court may not exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that has not purposefully availed itself of doing business in the jurisdiction or placed goods in the stream of commerce in the expectation they would be purchased in the jurisdiction.