Search for: "E. E.G. Y." Results 361 - 380 of 501
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jul 2017, 7:35 am by Rachel Sandler
§ 1.20(e)-(g) (2017) (3.5 year maintenance fees range from $400 to $1600, 7.5 year fees range from $900 to $3,600, and 11.5 year fees range from $1,850 to $7,400. [read post]
9 Feb 2017, 6:04 pm by Edward A. Fallone
Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm
  Not on the level we're typically talking about (e.g., pennies). [read post]
9 Aug 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
Within the US banking system, there are likely to be competitive shifts as banking institutions that do not engage in activities most impacted by the Capital Proposal (e.g., trading activities, fee or commission-based activities) benefit on a [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 5:31 am by Eugene Volokh
[W]e must consider ... not whether sexual conduct was the dominant theme of the movie but, rather, whether, taken as a whole, the movie appeals to the prurient interest. [read post]
25 May 2019, 10:01 am by Eugene Volokh
[E]very time a judicial officer engages in misconduct, he or she spends the goodwill of the judiciary as a whole. [read post]
25 Oct 2019, 10:00 am by Eugene Volokh
[E]xactly what speech a person knows will "tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule" may not be so easily determined in a diverse, pluralistic nation. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 6:18 pm
The later is particularly useful to Cuba, which has had long term ambitions to lead at least Caribbean regional trade and political framework (see, e.g., here). [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 4:32 pm by Kevin LaCroix
While one might argue that the class action mechanism renders such knowledge defenses irrelevant as a matter of collateral estoppel, a class benefitting from the Basic presumption is never accurately defined merely as purchasers between dates “X and Y,” but rather should be defined as purchasers between dates “X + Y, who did not know or believe that the misrepresentation was false or that an omission occurred. [read post]
16 Oct 2021, 9:21 am by admin
The essence of a failure-to-warn claim is that (1) a manufacturer knows, or should know, about a harmful aspect of its product, (2) which knowledge is not appreciated by customers, (3) the manufacturer fails to warn adequately of this known harm, and (4) the manufacturer’s failure to warn causes the plaintiff to sustain the particular harm of which the manufacturer had knowledge, actual or constructive. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 4:36 pm by Eugene Volokh
[W]e hold that the district court abused its discretion in issuing [a] preliminary injunction [against the Act] …. [read post]