Search for: "IN THE MATTER OF T W" Results 3121 - 3140 of 8,735
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Feb 2015, 3:03 am by Rebecca Tushnet
First, most of the statements at issue predated the registration date for the mark (though that really shouldn’t matter since trademark rights depend on use, not registration). [read post]
19 Jan 2022, 11:42 am by Rebecca Tushnet
” Second, in March 2018, Zuckerberg called the Cambridge Analytica incident a “mistake,” pledged to take action against “rogue apps,” and stated that “[w]e have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t then we don’t deserve to serve you. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 1:28 pm by Melina Padron
Welcome back to the human rights roundup, a regular bulletin of all the law we haven’t quite managed to feature in full blog posts. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 5:00 am by Bexis
  Gibson didn’t go into detail, but it didn’t really have to. [read post]
10 Sep 2019, 6:56 am
AG Szpunar noted that "[w]hat matters is not the number of persons to whom the communication is made but the fact that the person at the origin of that communication addresses his offer to persons not belonging to his private circle. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 3:10 pm by Kelly Phillips Erb
Even if you don’t receive a form W-2G, your gambling winnings are reportable as income. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 6:30 am by Benjamin Wittes
How did a president and former professor of constitutional law, who ran against the excesses of George W. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 10:06 pm by Kevin
It was only a matter of time before unpleasantness began. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 8:18 am by Tobin Admin
” The insurance company argued it didn’t send the settlement check because the plaintiff didn’t provide an executed W-9 form. [read post]
22 Sep 2020, 4:17 pm by Eugene Volokh
[T]he First Amendment … protects symbolic speech and expressive conduct as well as actual speech. [read post]
31 Oct 2019, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
”  The court went on to explain that “[w]hether a public employee’s speech is constitutionally protected depends [under Supreme Court case law] on ‘whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. [read post]