Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 2781 - 2800
of 4,554
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jan 2014, 5:00 am
In Bunch v. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 8:02 am
EFF cited a 6th Circuit case, US v. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 8:08 am
The rule does not require use of any particular captioning technology or standards for this – to the contrary, the rule allows VPDs and VPOs to make that determination by mutual agreement. [read post]
25 Dec 2013, 6:16 am
The opinion does not explain precisely what he argued, but it clearly was based on the premise that searching his home violated the requirements of the 4th Amendment. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 5:16 am
Pfizer, Inc., 712 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013), Aetna, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2013, 4:31 am
” Touby v. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm
Or take Frisby v. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 9:00 pm
To support this burden-shifting standard, the majority cited Novo Nordisk A/S v. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 5:16 am
The UK has thus far declined to ratify the 1997 Convention for precisely this reason. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 4:00 am
TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia [2013] HCA 5. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 7:20 am
Sukumar v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 6:36 am
Moreover, with respect to that one of the two options a RFRA claim is virtually foreclosed by the Court’s unanimous 1982 decision in United States v. [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 6:18 am
In the lawsuit captioned Sobieski v. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 12:03 pm
Content owners and ISPs say they don’t want these either, precisely because of the legitimacy issue. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 7:55 pm
., LP v. [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 10:35 am
The combined cases the Court heard for about ninety minutes (EPA v. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 11:12 am
Cohen v. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 12:16 pm
The ACPA was enacted precisely because there was no common law cause of action for cybersquatting. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 1:52 pm
Gillette v. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 9:08 pm
”); United States v. [read post]
