Search for: "ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION et al v. DOES 1 - 11"
Results 1 - 16
of 16
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Nov 2009, 10:30 am
Decided on November 24, 2009 No. 178 [*1]In the Matter of Daniel Goldstein, et al., Appellants, v New York State Urban Development Corporation, d/b/a Empire State Development Corporation, Respondent. [read post]
28 Jan 2008, 7:38 am
Following that dismissal the same counsel filed at least three separate cases in this court: Atlantic Recording Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2012, 2:14 pm
Appeals -- Appellate court lacks jurisdiction of appeal of final judgment where no notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of date judgment was final and appealable -- Motion for supplemental final judgment was not an authorized and timely motion that would suspend rendition of final judgment -- Supplemental final judgment ruling on entitlement to attorney's fees is not final or appealable where amount to be awarded has not been determined
CATALINA HALNAT, LLC, et… [read post]
11 Nov 2007, 2:00 am
Maverick Recording Company et al v. [read post]
8 Sep 2009, 11:37 am
SECREST et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,v.SECURITY NATIONAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2002-2 et al., Defendants and Respondents.No. [read post]
10 Nov 2012, 2:14 pm
CATALINA HALNAT, LLC, et al., Appellants, v. [read post]
5 Jul 2009, 5:01 pm
Tinker et al. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2017, 3:07 pm
FORRESTER WINNE, et al., Plaintiffs,v.NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-1, et al., Defendants.No. 1:16-cv-00229-JDL.United States District Court, D. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm
Scope 3 Emissions SB 253 would direct CARB to develop standards for GHG emissions reporting by January 1, 2025, with covered entities then required to begin annual reports following these standards in 2026 (for scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emissions) and in 2027 (for scope 3 emissions).[21] Scope 1 emissions are those that come directly from a company’s operations, such as its factories, heating plants, and vehicle fleets. [read post]
19 Nov 2017, 5:45 am
The CDA does not provide a basis for refusing to enforce the Equustek Order The only case relied upon by the California court for the legal proposition that the CDA gave Google immunity from the Equustek Order is Barnes v Yahoo. [read post]
18 Oct 2008, 11:33 pm
The Board also adopted the judges' finding that a Gissel bargaining order was necessary and warranted under NLRB v. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am
Well Marie-Andree cited that 1879 case Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
2 May 2008, 7:00 am
Landmark IP implications for universities: University of Western Australia v Gray: (IPRoo), (Managing Intellectual Property), (The Age), The latest edition of US Trade Representative’s ‘Special 301 Report’: (Ars Technica), (Ars Technica), (IAM), (Intellectual Property Watch), (Patry Copyright Blog), (Managing Intellectual Property), (Patent Docs), (IP Law360), Court rejects RIAA ‘making available’ theory: Atlantic v… [read post]
25 May 2022, 9:01 pm
But that does not mean issuers can take the Sample Letter lightly. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 10:44 am
Click Here American Trucking Association et al. v. [read post]
10 May 2010, 1:16 pm
– Business Wire, May 4, 2010 Navistar International Corporation /quotes/comstock/13*! [read post]
