Search for: "U.S. v. Hope*" Results 3101 - 3120 of 9,255
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Feb 2018, 9:00 am by Peter Margulies
That issue was front and center after the Supreme Court, in Haitian Centers Council v. [read post]
16 Feb 2018, 9:00 am by Peter Margulies
That issue was front and center after the Supreme Court, in Haitian Centers Council v. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 3:30 am by Masahiro Kurosaki
Sari and Nasu’s argument is predicated on the fact that Article V of the treaty does not expressly require a request or advance consultation for the exercise of collective self-defense, and that a related 1960 exchange of notes (also available in English) expressly exempts operations conducted under Article V from requirements for “prior consultation” that otherwise apply to major changes in the presence of U.S. troops, equipment, or facilities in… [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 5:00 am by Barry Sookman
” As expected, the proposal immediately came under fire by anti-copyright activist Michael Geist.[1] In criticizing the proposal he deployed the playbook that he uses to systematically oppose initiatives to protect creators of cultural materials;[2] namely, to deny there is any problem to be addressed, contend that even if there is problem the laws don’t need changing, and to engage in scaremongering[3], in this case, by claiming the proposal is “radical” and… [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 4:00 am by Josh Blackman
In the Barnett/Blackman constitutional law casebook, we included this introduction to United States v. [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 8:37 am by Florian Mueller
In fact, the moment he impressed me the most was when he conceded, in a Samsung v. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 8:00 am by Andrew Keane Woods
The issue of law enforcement access to data held abroad is in the news again with the Supreme Court set to hear oral argument in United States v. [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 7:00 am by Hennadiy Kutsenko
In the meantime, what is certain is that block chain and cryptocurrency are here to stay, at least for a while. [1] CRA documents no. 2013-0514701I7, 2014-0525191E5, and 2014-0561061E5 [2] Stewart v. [read post]