Search for: "Campbell v. USA"
Results 61 - 80
of 156
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 May 2016, 6:00 am
To the same end and in much the same form, Bill S-225 was subsequently introduced into the Senate by Senators Larry Campbell and Nancy Ruth. [read post]
22 May 2016, 4:05 pm
On 16 May 2016 Sir David Eady heard a PTR in the case of Bloor v Beresford. [read post]
8 May 2016, 4:15 pm
Supreme Court‘s recent decision in Pritchard v. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 10:29 am
Campbell Soup Co., No. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 4:04 pm
At the moment, there is no basis on which transfers of data to the USA can be any more justified than they were when the CJEU ruled in Schrems. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 8:37 am
Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald v. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 5:00 am
Press v. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 6:08 am
Wallace, DVM2; Karen Gruszynski, DVM3; Marilyn Bibbs Freeman, PhD4; Colin Campbell, DVM5; Shereen Semple, MS5; Kristin Innes, MPH5; Sally Slavinski, DVM6; Gabriel Palumbo, MPH1; Heather Bair-Brake, DVM1; Lillian Orciari, MS2; Rene E. [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 5:30 am
Amnesty International USA, 133 S. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 4:43 am
Commentary critical of the decision comes from Doug Wardlow at Fox News, Ken Connelly at CNN, Austin Nimocks at the Washington Examiner, Caleb Dalton at CNS News, and Jim Campbell at USA Today. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
ROYSTON, RAYZOR, VICKERY, & WILLIAMS, LLP v. [read post]
10 May 2015, 4:19 pm
Alastair Campbell suggested that the press was against Labour because of its support for the recommendations of the Leveson Report. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 10:21 am
The case is BWP Media USA, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 4:04 pm
Campbell Newman has lodged a claim against broadcaster Alan Jones, relating to comments he made about the Newman government’s approval of a mine expansion. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 6:01 am
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. [read post]
11 Aug 2014, 4:24 am
Automated Solutions Corporation v. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 4:00 am
A colleague pointed me to this USA Today story about fugitives. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 8:09 am
As discussed here, if considered satire, not parody, Dumb Starbucks could be liable for infringement (Dr Seuss Enterprises v Penguin Books USA (1997)).It seems unlikely that adding DUMB- provides enough distinction for it to avoid being considered an unauthorised derivative of Starbucks’ copyrighted works. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 12:51 am
Under the prevailing approach in the US, where YouTube is incorporated, the video would likely be considered a satire, because the copyright work, in this case the original RTS recording, is “a vehicle to poke fun at another target” (as the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit put it in Dr Seuss Enterprises v Penguin Books USA (1997), here). [read post]
26 Jan 2014, 7:01 pm
Jus sperniandi Quando esse direito de recorrer é exercido de forma abusiva, usa-se uma expressão comum no meio jurídico: diz-se que a parte exerce seu jus sperniandi. [read post]
