Search for: "Power-One Inc. v. United States" Results 2481 - 2500 of 3,369
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Aug 2012, 3:00 am by Terry Hart
But at the time, the term was broader: “a man endowed with superior faculties; mental power or faculties; disposition of nature by which any one is qualified for some peculiar employment. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 4:43 am
United States, 976 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1992). [read post]
14 Jul 2019, 4:56 pm by INFORRM
United States The Federal Trade Commission voted to approve a fine of roughly [read post]
11 May 2012, 2:57 am
" On January 24, 2011 the United States Supreme Court unanimously supported a broad reading of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 11:24 am by Eugene Volokh
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that principle under the United States Constitution....... [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 12:49 am by Marie Louise
(Patently-O) CAFC: Not “one and only one”: IGT v Bally (IPBiz) CAFC affirms ITC decision in Inv. [read post]
Ga.)); Bring a complaint in California federal court along with Attorneys General from six states (claims made by five states based on pendent jurisdiction dismissed in FTC v. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:42 am by Richard Hunt
† Risky business The Independence Project, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
(d) Current developments in the United States The Gazette of Law and Journalism[9] recently published an article (“The fall of libel and the rise of privacy”) which notes one of the reasons for the decline of defamation suits as being that: “…complainants had more options available to them in the digital age. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 2:57 pm by Kevin LaCroix
CalPERS was not one of the named plaintiffs in the class action. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 1:20 pm by Barbara S. Mishkin
In its order granting the CFPB’s petition for rehearing en banc, one of the issues the court ordered the parties to address was what the appropriate disposition would be in PHH if the court were to hold that the ALJ in Lucia v. [read post]
3 May 2020, 7:19 am by Eric Goldman
On appeal, Edwards argues that his conviction must be reversed and rendered because section 97-45-17 is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 9:45 am by Eugene Volokh
" That could be read, if one is interpreting the words "any other" in the abstract, as covering "all [employment] contracts within the Congress' commerce power,"[8] or at least any workers engaged more directly in foreign or interstate commerce, such as workers at hotels, people who do telephone sales, and the like. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 3:57 pm
In any event, the hearing officer considered that s.5(5) had been impliedly repealed, since the Secretary of State had exercised his powers to provide that a trade mark could be refused registration on relative grounds even where consent had been given, where the proprietor of the earlier trade mark raised an objection in opposition proceedings. [read post]
5 Aug 2012, 2:35 pm by Mark Zamora
Conway Express, Inc., 261 Ga. 41 (1991); Georgia Power Co. v. [read post]