Search for: "His Law v. USA" Results 2861 - 2880 of 3,297
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Sep 2018, 4:16 am by Edith Roberts
” At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps considers Kavanaugh’s “sole opinion on the issue of choice, a 2017 dissent in Garza v. [read post]
8 Feb 2008, 7:00 pm
– Facebook’s contractual rights to users’ photos problematic: (Spicy IP)PharmaEuropean Commission probes pharmaceutical sector: (Philip Brooks),WHO Board sets course on IP, avian flu, tighter publication policy: (Intellectual Property Watch),India: The Competition Act, patents and over hyped drugs: (Part I - Spicy IP), (Part II – Spicy IP), (Part III – Spicy IP),Ignoring not the solution –… [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 9:32 am by N. Peter Rasmussen
If other public disclosures adequately inform security holders that particular transactions have occurred, further tolling of the time for bringing suit to disgorge profits from those transactions is unwarranted, concluded the brief.Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 5:43 am
The instrument law enforcement agents utilize dictates the showing that must be made to obtain it and the type of records that must be disclosed in response.In re Warrant, supra. [read post]
9 Nov 2012, 5:31 am
(For contemporary illustrations of this point, see the interpretation recently promulgated by Bishop Mark Lawrence, or the statement of Bishop Shaw on gay marriage in his diocese, or the court's decision in the Dixon v. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 2:59 am by war
Needless to say, there are quite a few “other” points in Rares J’s 115 paragraphs: Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v National Rugby League Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 34 For a more recent “no volitional act, therefore no infringement” case in the USA see Prof Goldman’s ‘Photobucket Qualifies for the 512(c) Safe Harbor (Again)–Wolk v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 3:00 am
Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr (IP Frontline) Hollywood v Bollywood v Tollywood: When is ‘plagiarism’ equal to ‘copyright infringement’? [read post]
17 Nov 2013, 9:01 pm by Paula Mitchell
Haugen dropped his appeals and his execution was imminent, Governor Kitzhaber was prompted to issue a reprieve, which read, in part: WHEREAS, Oregon’s application of the death penalty is not fairly and consistently applied, and I do not believe that state-sponsored executions bring justice; NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by Article V, Section 14 of the Oregon Constitution, I, John A. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 8:57 pm
USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 989-99 (Fed. [read post]