Search for: "United States v. Dutch"
Results 261 - 280
of 768
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Sep 2016, 7:46 pm
The voting was as follows: In favour: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, South Africa, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam Against: Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and… [read post]
31 Aug 2016, 8:36 pm
Following this transitional period, the Brussels Ibis Regulation and all EU instruments in their area of law will no longer apply to the United Kingdom. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 7:05 am
Although it seemed that the audience was united in approval of the principle of that decision, there was plenty for discussion in the detail of precisely what was ordered, why, how and who was to pay for it.What is the role of EU law? [read post]
4 Aug 2016, 7:46 am
FactSet is also an honoree of Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For in the US and a Best Workplace Award recipient in the United Kingdom and France. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 4:00 am
An Analysis of Determining Factors in Dutch and European Court of Human Rights Case Law, (Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 24-40, June 2016).Eva Brems, SAS V France: A Reality Check, (July 15, 2016). [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 9:01 pm
Cutter v. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 6:04 am
Like the EC, the United States had urged the Court to rule that, at least in some circumstances, RICO applies extraterritorially. [read post]
24 Apr 2016, 4:00 am
You must use your real name https://t.co/zImAg8i7Et -> News Corp lodges fresh antitrust complaint against Google in Europe https://t.co/hGKSpB1pum -> Defective Call-to-Action Dooms Online Contract Formation–Sgouros v. [read post]
20 Mar 2016, 5:05 pm
The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Google Spain on the right to be forgotten, which means that claims concerning the right to be forgotten should be submitted directly to Google Inc in the United States. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 1:56 am
Their legal counsel Jacob Rogers, said the removal was the result of an overreach of U.S. copyright law but believes that they have no other option than to comply saying “Today, in an unfortunate example of the overreach of the United States’ current copyright law, the Wikimedia Foundation removed the Dutch-language text of The Diary of a Young Girl” adding “We took this action to comply with the United… [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 6:32 am
He eventually came to the United States and currently lives in Alexandria, Virginia. [read post]
13 Jan 2016, 5:11 am
He is teaching both in Hungarian and English language at the Szeged Law School, and he has delivered lectures at universities in Finland, the United States, France, Germany and Russia, and presented papers on conferences in Hungary, Germany, Canada, United States, Austria, Finland, Indonesia and France. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 8:00 pm
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 1:44 pm
Why else would the Supreme Court direct us to Morrison precisely when it was discussing claims that allegedly “touch and concern” the United States? [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 12:08 pm
Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (Kiobel I), affʹd on other grounds, Kiobel v. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 6:54 am
United States, 976 F. 2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1992). [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 12:38 pm
” One farmer told Amnesty researchers that Kurdish forces threatened to tell the United States that his family was Islamic State if he did not leave his home. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 11:10 am
Royal Dutch Petroleum (2013), federal courts will only have jurisdiction over non-citizens’ claims for violations of international law when such claims “touch and concern the territory of the United States. [read post]
4 Oct 2015, 4:54 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. [read post]
27 Sep 2015, 6:21 pm
Supreme Court in its 2010 decision in Morrison v. [read post]
