Search for: "Little v. Little" Results 3921 - 3940 of 35,608
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jul 2018, 9:05 am by Carlene Nicol
  Employees are entitled to the full suite of employment rights, while self-employed contractors have very little protection under employment law. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 5:01 pm
Then the reversal, suggesting trolls have less appeal … But Morrow and her colleagues appealed, countering that under another Federal Circuit case, SanDisk Corp. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 10:27 am by Joshua Auriemma
Love for Our Geeks - @andyfromcornell writes in to pimp the Penn State Law Civil Rights Clinic’s recent grant of cert in Coleman v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 6:34 am by Antitrust Today
A day before Judge Brody’s ruling, the Third Circuit vacated a $295 million settlement in the De Beers case, Sullivan v. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 7:57 am
Tsai has written a fine book, but I cannot help but think that the late Justice Stanley Reed got it right in his dissent inMcCollum v. [read post]
3 Oct 2007, 10:00 pm
The issue is not unique to the pharmaceutical industry, but the pressure is a little more acute because of the absolute monopoly in the product enjoyed by the innovator company just prior to the first generic launch.In some jurisdictions, most notably the UK, a line of authorities has sprung up which requires the generic company to either obtain a declaration of non-infringement or revoke the patent prior to launch.In the ongoing global Plavix litigation, the Australian Federal Court… [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 11:15 am by admin
Sources: Washington Post – Parents wrestle with rear-facing car seat advice MSNBC – New advice: Tots safest in rear-facing car seats until age 2: In front-facing car seats, a crash can jerk child’s head, causing spinal cord injuries CNN Health – AAP: Toddlers in rear-facing seat until 2 *v [read post]
12 Aug 2017, 3:54 pm by Jon Ibanez
The California Court of Appeals in the case of People v. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 8:30 am by Steven G. Pearl
As to substantive unconscionability, the Court found that the arbitration clause at issue was identical to the one at issue in Little v. [read post]