Search for: "M v. M" Results 2241 - 2260 of 55,023
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jul 2023, 1:04 pm by Larry
That might be an interesting unintended consequence of this EAPA case.By Lawrence M. [read post]
28 Jul 2023, 12:28 pm by Ilya Somin
They undermine meritocracy in much the same way as racial preferences in higher education do, except much more so: The recent Supreme Court case about affirmative action in university admissions (SFFA v. [read post]
28 Jul 2023, 12:22 pm by Alexandre Daoust
En effet, les jugements mèneront à des décisions dont continuera de s’inspirer l’OPIC dans ses mises à jour successives du chapitre du Recueil des pratiques du Bureau des brevets (RPBB) portant sur les « inventions mises en œuvre par ordinateur » (présentement le chapitre 22). [read post]
28 Jul 2023, 6:05 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Kasmin v Josephs 2023 NY Slip Op 32468(U) July 19, 2023 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 152213/2020 Judge: Nancy M. [read post]
28 Jul 2023, 12:37 am by JR Chaves
A continuación, el autor expone su propuesta de modelo, que ciertamente se ofrece retador y a mi modesto juicio, utópico en algunos puntos; en concreto, la meta de obtener sentencias en tres meses como máximo, que siendo loable y factible en un gran volumen de casos, resulta realmente escurridiza por la fuerza de las garantías, tanto del interés público como privado, y por las estrategias procesales legítimas de los abogados. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 3:27 pm by Larry
" The latter including goods of Heading 8429, meaning "Self-propelled bulldozers, angledozers, graders, levelers, scrapers, mechanical shovels, excavators, shovel loaders, tamping machines and road rollers," which is really the topic of this post.In Norca Engineered Products, LLC v. [read post]
26 Jul 2023, 2:25 pm by Howard Knopf
Ariel and I, along with a very smart young law professor named David Lametti, who later became Minister of Justice, made the prevailing arguments in the SCC in the 2015 case of Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. [read post]