Search for: "D, Otherwise C. v. C" Results 2141 - 2160 of 4,550
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 May 2016, 3:22 pm
Dunbar, supra.Before I outline the facts and procedural history of the case, I need to note thatConnecticut General Statutes § 14–296aa(b)(1) provides as follows:Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and subsections (c) and (d) of this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle upon a highway, as defined in section 14-1, while using a hand-held mobile telephone to engage in a call or while using a mobile electronic device. [read post]
14 May 2016, 3:34 am by Florian Mueller
Further below you can find a very long list of items in the evidentiary record of Oracle v. [read post]
11 May 2016, 6:01 am
The 6th trial is a 'non-technical trial', and forms the basis of the present application.The patents in trials A and C have been found valid and essential/infringed. [read post]
10 May 2016, 6:23 am by Eugene Volokh
Emory University’s Standing Committee for Open Expression — an official university body — has just issued another broadly speech-protective opinion interpreting the Emory Open Expression Policy. [read post]
8 May 2016, 2:31 pm by Giles Peaker
The assessing officer concluded that PO was likely to be still receiving the funds otherwise. [read post]
4 May 2016, 6:44 am by Bill Marler
An Introduction to Listeria Listeria (pronounced liss-STEER-ē-uh) is a gram-positive rod-shaped bacterium that can grow under either anaerobic (without oxygen) or aerobic (with oxygen) conditions. [4, 18] Of the six species of Listeria, only L. monocytogenes (pronounced maw-NO-site-aw-JUH-neez) causes disease in humans. [18] These bacteria multiply best at 86-98.6 degrees F (30-37 degrees C), but also multiply better than all other bacteria at refrigerator temperatures, something that… [read post]
1 May 2016, 1:49 pm by streetartandlaw
Then Defendants argue that their name, “Moschino,” falls into the exception of Section 1202(c), as “personally identifying information about the user of a work”. [read post]
26 Apr 2016, 4:03 pm by Giles Peaker
Ahmad v Newham [2009] PTSR 632 was not relevant where the issue was discrimination, rather than relative allocation of preference. [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 4:21 pm by Eugene Volokh
Unsurprisingly, this conflicts with the Supreme Court’s precedents (such as City of Ladue v. [read post]