Search for: "Drake v. State" Results 301 - 320 of 362
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2008, 8:00 pm
., a gay-rights advocacy group, won a 4-3 victory in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on June 5 in Storms v. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 10:02 am by Lindsey Williams
 I also welcome the opportunity to state our position on these issues. [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 6:02 pm by Duncan
(Public Knowledge) Michael Geist presentation: ACTA – The state of play (Michael Geist) Australia I thought cats were colour blind… Federal Court confirms Mars has exclusive right to use colour ‘Whiskas purple’ for cat food: Mars Australia Pty Ltd (formerly Effem Foods Pty Ltd) v Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog) FCAFC: On appeal, simulated flames from direct light found infringing: Bitech… [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 12:37 pm by Geoffrey Rapp
Mincberg, Note, Guns, collective bargaining and moral turpitude: Gilbert Arenas and the National Basketball Association, 10 VIRGINIA SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 43 (2010) Damon Moore, Proposals for reform to agent regulations, 59 DRAKE LAW REVIEW 517 (2011) Ryan Murphy, Note, Playing fair in the boardroom: an examination of the corporate structures of European football clubs, 19 MICHIGAN STATE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 409 (2011) Blaine V. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 6:31 am
(Public Knowledge) Michael Geist presentation: ACTA – The state of play (Michael Geist)     Australia I thought cats were colour blind... [read post]
23 Nov 2017, 9:30 pm by Sarah Madigan
Supreme Court case, Christie v. [read post]
19 Jul 2007, 1:47 pm
Drake-Willock International, Ltd., 530 N.W.2d 510, 515 (Mich. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 5:23 pm by rainey Reitman
  Similarly, the United States Congress is elected by American voters. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 5:32 am
As Justice Mustang wrote for the Untied States Supreme Court in in the semenal 2010 case of Clouseau v. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am by Ben
In the UK in FAPL v BT [2017] Mr Justice Arnold concluded that the High Court has the jurisdiction to make an order against an access provider that would require the ISP to block access not to a website but rather streaming servers giving unauthorised access to copyright content - 'live' blocking. [read post]