Search for: "MATTER OF A W A V" Results 2461 - 2480 of 8,370
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Nov 2018, 10:28 am by Ronald Mann
It’s not hard to see where the justices are leaning in Frank v. [read post]
31 Oct 2018, 2:20 pm by Wolfgang Demino
LoBiondo, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua Kipnees, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice & Peter W. [read post]
28 Oct 2018, 5:09 pm by INFORRM
Last Week in the Courts On 22 October 2018 the Court of Appeal (Master of the Rolls, Bean and Flaux LJJ) handed down judgment in the case of Various Claimants v W M Morrison Supermarkets [2018] EWCA Civ 2339. [read post]
25 Oct 2018, 8:03 am by Hilary Hurd, Elena Chachko
On Oct. 20, President Trump announced that the United States would pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a 1987 bilateral agreement prohibiting the United States and Russia from possessing, producing or test-flying ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers and their launchers. [read post]
25 Oct 2018, 4:29 am by Edith Roberts
” At Lawfare, Ingrid Wuerth cautions that, when the court decides Jam v. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 4:33 pm by Kevin LaCroix
John Reed Stark Most readers are undoubtedly familiar with the concept of “insider trading” – that is, the purchase or sale by company insiders of their personal holdings in company shares based on material non-public information. [read post]
21 Oct 2018, 4:59 pm by INFORRM
, Tulishree Pradhan, KIIT University – KIIT School Of Law Next Week in the Courts  On 21 October 2018 the Court of Appeal ((Master of the Rolls, Bean and Flaux LJJ) will hand down judgment in the case of Various Claimants v W [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 12:50 pm by Daniel Nazer
It wrote: [W]hile we agree with [Inventor Holdings] as a general matter that it was and is sometimes difficult to analyze patent eligibility under the framework prescribed by the Supreme Court . . . , there is no uncertainty or difficulty in applying the principles set out in Alice to reach the conclusion that the ’582 patent's claims are ineligible. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Further, the court opined, "[w]here substantial evidence exists, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, even if the court would have decided the matter differently" and if substantial evidence supports the administrative decision being challenged, that determination must be sustained "irrespective of whether a similar quantum of evidence is available to support other varying conclusions. [read post]