Search for: "Public Service Co. v. State"
Results 3701 - 3720
of 5,844
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2016, 3:34 am
Further below you can find a very long list of items in the evidentiary record of Oracle v. [read post]
17 Aug 2014, 1:22 pm
They might, though serve as a basis for the formulation of public policy and national legislation by the OECD member states. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 7:03 am
Ratonel et al v. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 6:14 am
Under the heading “competing interests,” the authors state that “they have no competing interests. [read post]
26 Feb 2022, 3:52 am
United KingdomDirector of Public Prosecutions v. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 7:22 am
Liptak notes that the Court's 2002 decision in Atkins v. [read post]
29 Aug 2024, 9:30 am
The case, Cingari v. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 7:55 am
See, Kaplan v. [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 1:07 pm
See, Kaplan v. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 7:55 am
See, Kaplan v. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 5:38 pm
In Solis v. [read post]
2 Oct 2010, 11:20 am
In Bakalar v. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 1:56 am
EPE stood its ground, also stating that it had built up significant goodwill in its trade marks and logos to the extent that a substantial body of the public, upon seeing those marks and logos, would believe those goods or services to be those of EPE and its lawful licensees. [read post]
1 Aug 2021, 11:20 am
Minnesota is in the Eighth Circuit, and courts here are guided by the SquirtCo factors (named for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 1980 ruling in SquirtCo v Seven-Up Co.). [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 7:53 am
Waterbury v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:15 pm
And in Vance v. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 11:26 am
No. 1J v. [read post]
6 Dec 2023, 2:35 am
These mandatory requirements are part of the Singapore Exchange Regulation’s (SGX Reg Co) listing rules on public disclosure through annual reports and are supplemented by guiding principles in the Code of Corporate Governance (Singapore Code) and Practice Guidance issued by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). [read post]
2 Jan 2017, 12:18 pm
At a minimum the party to be bound must be shown to have been aware of the Terms and Conditions at the time of purchase: see Kobelt Manufacturing Co v Pacific Rim Engineered Products (1987) Ltd, 2011 BCSC 224 at para 124, 84 BLR (4th) 189. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 8:40 am
(Ilya Somin) A little over a year has passed since the Supreme Court’s momentous decision in NFIB v. [read post]
