Search for: "Mark Fish v. State"
Results 241 - 260
of 456
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Sep 2014, 8:34 am
Yates was given fair notice that throwing undersized fish into the Gulf of Mexico would violate the "document shredding provision" of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; and Zivotofsky v. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 11:42 am
United States — whether a federal law making it a crime to destroy evidence, including physical objects, applies only to documents or records, or may instead also include discarding fish caught illegally Johnson v. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 11:39 am
In Toyukak v. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 7:19 am
In R v Lord Chancellor Ex p Witham[1998] QB 575 he noted (at 581) that “in the unwritten legal order of the British state” it is “the common law [which] continues to accord a legislative supremacy to Parliament”. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 9:04 am
United States, in which a commercial fisherman was prosecuted under the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act for destroying undersized fish, and the amicus brief that Cato filed in the case. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 6:05 am
” At the blog of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Lisa Soronen discusses the State and Local Legal Center’s amicus brief, as well as the issues at stake more broadly, in next Term’s North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
20 May 2014, 8:49 am
Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> People of the State of California v. [read post]
1 May 2014, 9:05 pm
Court will hear case of mariner charged with Sarbanes-Oxley records-destruction violation for discarding undersized fish [Jonathan Adler, Eugene Volokh, Daniel Fisher] SCOTUS goes 9-0 for wider patent fee shifting in Octane Fitness v. [read post]
29 Apr 2014, 3:11 am
California and United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 3:00 pm
" United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 6:52 am
The case is Ryan v. [read post]
28 Mar 2014, 5:33 pm
MagSil Corp. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 6:00 am
The youngest of six children [1], she wanted to make her mark on the world. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 10:33 am
In the case at issue Yoshido’s earlier patents and the products marketed by the applicant [as happened with the earlier patents in Lego] could well-be considered ‘relevant material’ in view of the examination of the possible technical function of the trade mark.In this regard, the Court stated, it is also fine to consider relevant material to the trade mark’s application date. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 12:49 pm
That view is strengthened by the steady progress of the law since 2012 in cases like Cox v. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 2:29 pm
United States v. [read post]
19 Jan 2014, 5:30 am
TERIX COMPUTER ND Cali 2014http://t.co/r8N6zDq81Q -> BitTorrent user found liable for direct and contributory infringement PURZEL VIDEO v. [read post]
19 Jan 2014, 5:30 am
TERIX COMPUTER ND Cali 2014http://t.co/r8N6zDq81Q -> BitTorrent user found liable for direct and contributory infringement PURZEL VIDEO v. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 3:01 am
Case C 445/12 P Rivella International AG v OHIM, Baskaya di Baskays Alim E.C. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 1:50 am
There is a likelihood of confusion between the Marks BETPACK and BETDAQ and the registration of a confusingly similar mark is contrary to the provisions of Community Law prohibiting the registration of the Trade Mark in the State, particularly Council Regulations regarding the registration of trade marks. [read post]
