Search for: "DOE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al" Results 221 - 240 of 344
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Sep 2011, 11:39 pm by David Kopel
(Pasting the Word document into the blog format significantly altered many of the indents, line spacing, and outline numbering for chapter subdivisions, so the TOC below does not look exactly like the TOC of the book itself.) [read post]
With the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit having struck down Rule 14a-11 in Business Roundtable et al v. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 2:00 am by Kara OBrien
 In this memo, Practice Center Contributor Stan Keller discusses what might happen now: With the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit having struck down Rule 14a-11 in Business Roundtable et al v. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 5:42 pm by INFORRM
On 15 July 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the use of full-body scanners to screen air travellers in the case of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), et al. v United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. [read post]
25 May 2011, 11:53 am by clee
  The lawsuit is currently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [read post]
3 May 2011, 2:09 pm by Lyle Denniston
The ruling came Monday in the long-running case of Nordyke, et al., v. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 3:24 am by Marie Louise
Swarm of November 16, 2010 et al (TorrentFreak) OpenMind – Judge stays discovery: OpenMind v Does (Electronic Frontier Foundation) Righthaven – Copyright troll Righthaven’s epic blunder: a lawsuit targeting Ars (ArsTechnica) Thomas-Rassett, Jammie – 5 years later, first P2P case to be tried still chugging along (ArsTechnica) US Trade Marks & Domain Names – Lawsuits and strategic steps Google – Another advertiser class action… [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 2:40 pm by Jon McLaughlin
The federal district court responded as follows: [The respondent] seeks to…argu[e] the statute does not mean what it says on its face. [read post]