Search for: "State v. Holderness" Results 2921 - 2940 of 8,247
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Nov 2016, 2:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Though there was a possibility of such a relationship developing, the Court saw this as extremely unlikely, and recognised that whilst children are rights-holders on their own account, their rights are not a passport to another person’s rights. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 8:56 am by Marie-Andree Weiss
It is legally obliged to take down infringing content upon notification from the rights holder. [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 2:16 am
 The Court also notes that the Member States may lay down additional conditions capable of improving the protection of authors’ rights beyond what is expressly laid down in the directive. [read post]
8 Nov 2016, 4:09 am by Edith Roberts
At The Council of State Governments’ Knowledge Center blog, Lisa Soronen discusses Coventry Health Care of Missouri, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2016, 2:06 am by Nicola Smith
  See Fair Work Commission v Roberts [2016] FWC 4052 (29 June 2016), Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Vink [2016] FWC 2512 (20 April 2016), and Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v CFMEU [2016] FWC 811 (7 March 2016). [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 12:17 pm by Joe Consumer
I’m sure AG Holder and his hip client couldn’t be happier. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 10:33 am by Shannon Togawa Mercer
The Government has already ruled out extending the points-based visa system, the current immigration policy applied to immigrants from outside the EU, to EU passport holders. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 1:22 am
The latter part of the presentation covered recent cases on medicines regulation, focussing on R(Roche Registration Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health [2015] EWCA Civ 1311 (although this English Court of Appeal decision was handed down on 21 December 2015, it may have escaped your radar due to seasonal festivities and/or the mad rush to tie up loose ends before the Christmas vacation...) [read post]
22 Oct 2016, 3:26 am
Copinger (17th ed), [22-18], p 1626, n 94 cites the Hong Kong case of Hksar v Chan Nai Mang (2005), in which it was held that the meaning of “affect prejudicially” was wide in scope and not necessarily restricted to economic prejudice, although that was the obvious area at which the section was directed. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 4:33 am by Edith Roberts
” At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports that, as a result of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. [read post]