Search for: "State v. Holder"
Results 2641 - 2660
of 8,247
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2019, 7:34 pm
Since our client resided in New Jersey, her application had a better chance compared to states under the 9th Circuit (see Momeni v. [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 11:41 am
In Weingarten v. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 7:40 am
A parallel Huawei v. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 11:21 am
But were that the state of the evidence, well, it is what it is. [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 12:26 pm
The meeting then adjourned and articles of amendment containing Proposal 1 were accepted for record by the State Department of Assessments and Taxation. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 10:21 am
Ass'n v. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 7:21 am
”See Goddard v. [read post]
6 Sep 2020, 10:56 am
The notice must state that the copyright holder has a “good faith belief” that the identified content infringes. [read post]
3 Feb 2017, 1:27 pm
See Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 125-26 (holding that permanent destruction of small portion of property for testing a de minimis intrusion on possessory interest); United States v. [read post]
23 Jun 2022, 7:14 am
Co., Ltd. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 1:58 pm
The court first walked through its United States v. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 7:05 am
In quashing that decision, the Court stated that: It is important to impress upon the Board that, at least where it is ordering the very serious penalty of cancelling a taxicab driver’s licence and thereby depriving the holder of earning a livelihood, it must provide reasons for its decision. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 4:33 am
Crocs, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 1:03 pm
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts stated, “Mapping a cellphone’s location over the course of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 1:03 pm
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts stated, “Mapping a cellphone’s location over the course of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts. [read post]
10 May 2011, 10:50 am
Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. [read post]
10 May 2011, 10:47 am
Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2018, 4:19 pm
The expert near-consensus on this subject is backed by longstanding Supreme Court precedent, going back to United States v. [read post]
21 Aug 2011, 9:32 pm
The word "made" was not a term of art in the Copyright Act and the word "under" was held in Kucana v Holder (2010) to be a "chameleon" form (picture, left) which the courts must draw its meaning from its context. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 6:50 am
For JDPI or similarly situated trademark holders to obtain a different outcome, they must seek relief before the United States Supreme Court or the United States Congress. [read post]
