Search for: "DOE v. Smith"
Results 2081 - 2100
of 6,568
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jun 2024, 10:11 pm
It reminded me of the scene from the Matrix Reloaded where Neo single-handedly destroys every single Agent Smith. [read post]
29 Dec 2023, 11:00 am
While the readers may remember that in InterDigital v Lenovo [2023] EWHC 539 (Pat) Mellor J adopted an exclusionary approach with comparables, disregarding most and eventually relied on a single prior licence LG 2017 to derive all the rates in that Judgment, Marcus Smith J differed from that approach and considered that at least in this case, the comparables only have value if an inclusive approach is taken. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 4:28 am
However, equal division is not always equitable, as in Smith v. [read post]
11 Feb 2019, 6:07 am
See Blum v. [read post]
5 Jul 2008, 8:10 am
DOE (01-1231) 538 U.S. 1 (2003)SMITH V. [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 8:46 am
District Judge Denny Chin has ruled in Stern v. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 11:32 am
The context of AdWords is very different from that of Viacom v YouTube (for example) of course, but does this point to how we may see an upcoming ECJ reference panning out on liability of web 2.0 sites, like eBay, and in particular, whether they can be compelled by the likes of LVM to proactively filter out content, rather than run, as now, on a post factum notice and take down paradigm? [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 5:51 am
This is a question the Court of Appeal considered in its recent judgment in James Butler v John Smith. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 12:40 pm
United States, 09-11328, and Smith v. [read post]
12 Apr 2008, 4:20 am
Smith, 442 U.S. at 740. [read post]
3 Jan 2007, 3:59 pm
In Stone v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 10:14 am
ContentGuard v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:29 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
Given the absence of a provision for prior approval — a finding that petitioner does not dispute — the Comptroller appropriately found that the agreements do not cover when or how petitioner worked overtime. [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
Given the absence of a provision for prior approval — a finding that petitioner does not dispute — the Comptroller appropriately found that the agreements do not cover when or how petitioner worked overtime. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
"In determining what constitutes . . . compensation paid in anticipation of retirement, we must look to the substance of the transaction and not to what the parties may label it" (Matter of Green v Regan, 103 AD2d 878, 878-879 [3d Dept 1984]; see Matter of Smith v DiNapoli, 167 AD3d at 1210; Matter of Chichester v DiNapoli, 108 AD3d 924, 925 [3d Dept 2013]). [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
"In determining what constitutes . . . compensation paid in anticipation of retirement, we must look to the substance of the transaction and not to what the parties may label it" (Matter of Green v Regan, 103 AD2d 878, 878-879 [3d Dept 1984]; see Matter of Smith v DiNapoli, 167 AD3d at 1210; Matter of Chichester v DiNapoli, 108 AD3d 924, 925 [3d Dept 2013]). [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 7:24 am
Respondent does not argue otherwise.People v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 9:38 am
See Reynolds v. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 3:26 am
Plaintiff does not contend that Bryan Cave was negligent in submitting the Form 5307. [read post]
