Search for: "A----. B v. C----. D"
Results 3881 - 3900
of 10,365
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2010, 7:26 am
The IPKat has learned, via the UK Intellectual Property Office, of Case C-145/10 Eva-Maria Paine v Standard Verlags GmbH, Axel Springer AG, Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH, Spiegel-Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co KG and Verlag M. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 11:24 pm
The most controversial part of the Libel Legislation is found in sections 33 and 37 (the “Sections”), which concern seditious libel: (1) Any person who a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act with a seditious intention; or b) utters any seditious words; or c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or d) imports any seditious… [read post]
11 Sep 2014, 7:47 am
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z A Afghanistan Algeria American Samoa Argentina Australia Austria B Bangladesh Bolivia Botswana Brazil… [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 8:37 am
R. 5:3-3(d) and (h). [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 11:29 am
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 5:15 am
[Georgia Code] § 16–12–100(b)(8). [read post]
1 Jun 2008, 5:55 am
By: Scott B. [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 7:22 am
The German (Düsseldorf) and Dutch courts found the opposite and concluded that Article 3(c) was not met. [read post]
21 Sep 2018, 10:36 am
B. [read post]
28 Sep 2022, 1:26 pm
See e.g., Appeal of Zenith National Insurance Corp. and Apple, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Sep 2014, 8:18 am
For his part, Owens emphasizes a different paragraph – Section 1446(c)(2)(B), which deals with allegations related to the amount in controversy and states that removal is proper “on the basis of an amount in controversy asserted [in the notice of removal] if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the [required threshold]. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 5:25 am
§ 20109(a)(1) and § (b)(1)(A). [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 1:25 am
Co. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2007, 10:13 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Kimberly C. [read post]
3 Oct 2024, 9:57 am
The former president, however, has recently stated that he has “nothing to do” with Project 2025 and disagrees with unspecified parts of it; furthermore, an emailed press statement from his campaign “greatly welcome[d]” Project 2025’s “demise. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 12:23 pm
§1332(d)(1)(B) (see Opinion at 5). [read post]
2 Feb 2022, 2:56 pm
Dans le troisième dossier, une partie sans lien de dépendance avec le contribuable a versé une somme importante à ce dernier dans le but de bénéficier de l’option d’acheter une partie de ses avoirs miniers. [read post]
26 Jul 2023, 8:53 am
Criteria to be applied In contrast to the Chamber, the Grand Chamber considered that the Axel Springer criteria for balancing Articles 8 and 10 (see Axel Springer v Germany [2012] ECHR 227)) were not applicable. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 5:22 pm
May prevent you from splitting rights as you’d prefer (cf. [read post]
24 May 2021, 9:07 am
§2034.430(d) and Rancho Bernardo Development Co v. [read post]
