Search for: "Goldstein Development Corp." Results 61 - 80 of 118
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Oct 2011, 10:52 am by Conor McEvily
Fisher, and CompuCredit Corp. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 12:18 pm by Lawrence Solum
New York State Urban Development Corp., and Goldstein v. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
Rather, the core of Montz’s allegations is that the defendants copied his ideas and developed derivative works based on his screenplays, videos, and other materials–and the right to prevent them from doing so is protected, if at all, only under the Copyright Act. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 6:34 am by Ronald Mann
MercExchange, the Court has reversed pro-patent decisions of the Federal Circuit that rely on doctrinal peculiarities developed at the Federal Circuit level. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 9:22 am by Christa Culver
Army Corps of EngineersDocket: 10-1059Issue(s): The court of appeals held in this case that land transfers by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to the State of South Dakota pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 did not violate §§ 605(b)(3) and (c)(1)(B) of that Act because they did not include lands within the “external boundaries” of the Yankton Sioux Reservation. [read post]
26 Jun 2010, 7:12 am by Anna Christensen
Regal-Beloit Corp., Rent-A-Center, West v. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 11:54 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
Corp., the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division rejection of the proposed condemnation and, in reliance on its recent holding in Matter of Goldstein v. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 11:54 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
Corp., the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division rejection of the proposed condemnation and, in reliance on its recent holding in Matter of Goldstein v. [read post]
2 May 2010, 6:20 am by Anna Christensen
AnimalFeeds International Corp. now includes a link to the opinion as well, in addition to a recap by Stanford Law School’s Vivian Wang. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 12:24 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 178 (Nov. 24, 2009): The [Kaur] decision is completely out of step with eminent domain law, including a recent 6-to-1 decision from the New York State Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 9:11 am by Bill Ward
New York State Urban Development Corp. and the Empire State Development Corp. [read post]