Search for: "Kent International, Inc. v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 93
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2024, 2:48 pm by Larry
The basis for this decision is explained in Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 5:31 am by Ashley Morgan
When the FDA approves a drug for sale in the United States, the FDA includes a section in the drugs package insert titled "Indications for Use. [read post]
22 Dec 2023, 4:00 am by Amy Salyzyn
This parallels developments in other common law jurisdictions such as the United States, England and Australia where guidance for lawyers on the ethical use of generative AI is starting to emerge. [read post]
3 Sep 2023, 4:43 pm by INFORRM
Music and Copyright IPKat provides a summary of the three cases brought in the United States claiming that the song Thinking Out Loud performed by Ed Sheeran, copied Let’s Get It On performed by Marvin Gaye. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 3:38 am by INFORRM
On 14 July 2023, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the Chinese state broadcaster’s international division, China Global Television Network (CGTN), against a £125,000 fine handed down by Ofcom, Star China Media Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Office of Communications [2023] EWCA Civ 843. [read post]
25 Feb 2023, 6:50 pm by admin
  Selikoff served as an intern, at the Beth Israel Hospital, in Newark, New Jersey.[20] 1944 – 1946. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 8:20 pm by James Kwong
Jordan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. [read post]
29 May 2022, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
The Panopticon Blog had an article on the recently discontinued representative claim SMO v TikTok Inc and Others [2022] EWHC 489 (QB). [read post]
1 May 2022, 4:30 pm by INFORRM
On the same day Steyn J heard an application in the case of Ince Group v Persons Unknown On 27 April 2022 Nicklin J heard a mode of trial application in the case of Blake v Fox. [read post]
20 Mar 2022, 5:36 pm by INFORRM
On 14 March 2022, the Supreme Court denied Julian Assange permission to appeal against the High Court’s decision to extradite him to the United State as the application did not raise an arguable point of law. [read post]
27 Nov 2021, 8:48 am by Larry
The underlying dispute is whether such seats are classifiable as seats of Heading 9401 (duty free) or as bicycle accessories of 8714.99.8000, which are subject to a 10% rate of duty.The CAFC opinion in Kent International, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
First, Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd. [read post]
5 Jul 2021, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd, heard 2-3 November 2020 Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd, heard 12 November 2020 R (on the… [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 SC, CB and 8 children (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others (Respondents), heard 20-22 October 2020 Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel… [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Second, General Dynamics United Kingdom Ltd v State of Libya. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 8:01 am by William Ford, Victoria Gallegos
Mike Nagata, senior vice president of CACI International Inc.; retired Lt. [read post]
7 Feb 2021, 4:53 pm by INFORRM
United States Bloomberg had a piece “Fox News Faces $2.7 Billion Lawsuit Over Voting Machine Fraud Claims”. [read post]
17 Jan 2021, 6:15 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
To state the same proposition in the negative, on the assumption that Twitter Inc. has no physical or business presence in Canada, I do not see in this case how B.C. law could be applied to tweets relayed by Twitter and published in the United States. [read post]