Search for: "LITTLE v. HOLDER" Results 301 - 320 of 1,864
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Aug 2020, 7:31 am by Martin A. Schwartz
There appears to be only a single case from New York dealing with this issue, HH Cincinnati Textile L.P. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 7:00 am by ACLU
Currently, tens of millions of immigrants — including some green card holders, DACA recipients, TPS holders, and undocumented people — are being denied access to COVID-related testing and treatment. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 4:00 am by John Gregory
An overlap of e-signatures and Internet voting presented some legal challenges in Australia, leading to a decision I found problematic in a 2014 case comment on Getup Ltd v Elections Commissioner. [read post]
In a future post we will address some of the broader issues of changes in China law to effect these obligations, and the questions of enforcement, without which these obligations carry little weight. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 2:18 pm by Kevin LaCroix
John Reed StarkIs a company’s post-breach forensic report subject to discovery in subsequent breach related litigation? [read post]
A type of ‘top-down’ approach was relied on in the 2013 US case In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC and the 2014 Japanese case Samsung v Apple Japan (Apple Japan Godo Kaisha v Samsung Electronics Co). [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 12:26 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Thus, many class actions seeking supplemental disclosures became a vehicle for plaintiffs’ firms to obtain attorneys’ fees for little, if any, meaningful benefit for shareholders. [read post]
17 May 2020, 8:14 am
  The connection with accounting remained, but reduced to a dimension increasingly rejected by Western society as abhorrent to its ideals emerging from the Enlightenment (famously in Dostoevsky, Brothers Karamazov (Constance Garnett, trans.: NY Lowell Press) Bk V, Chp V, The Grand Inquisitor)). [read post]
4 May 2020, 4:26 pm by Brittany Walter and Steven Hollman
  This is an oft-forgotten benefit of the patent system in general—because meaningful public disclosure accompanies the limited monopoly granted to the patent holder, there is little long-term risk for the inventor to grant this form of license. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 10:41 am by Peter Margulies
But, as the proclamation itself acknowledges, its restrictions will do little to address these pressing concerns. [read post]