Search for: "State v. Copland"
Results 21 - 34
of 34
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Apr 2007, 7:46 am
COPLAND v. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 8:03 am
In its decision, the ECHR considered and distinguished – but did not overrule – Halford v UK and Copland v UK on various case-specific facts. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 2:10 pm
For example, in [Filartiga v. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 6:54 am
In an op-ed for the Washington Times (3/9) Jim Copland, director of the Center for Legal Policy and Paul Howard, director of the Center for Medical Progress at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, write, "Pharmaceutical manufacturers in America now face a...hazardous path...after the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in Wyeth v. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 6:54 am
In an op-ed for the Washington Times (3/9) Jim Copland, director of the Center for Legal Policy and Paul Howard, director of the Center for Medical Progress at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, write, "Pharmaceutical manufacturers in America now face a...hazardous path...after the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in Wyeth v. [read post]
4 Jun 2017, 4:52 pm
United States NPR reports on the so-called “pink slime” libel case between Beef Products Inc and ABC News will take place in a South Dakota state court this week. [read post]
17 Mar 2009, 2:15 pm
Jim Copland gets it right and wrong about preemption. [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 5:52 am
See e.g., Copland v. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm
In Trinity Wall St. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 3:54 am
(3) Data retention remains doubtful in terms of fundamental rights compliance: in the ECHR, S & Marper v UK questions mass monitoring of the unconvicted, Copland v UK reiterates that traffic data is covered by Article 8 (as I argue here); the German courts are considering various challenges (summarised by Digital Rights Ireland: 1 | 2), and DRI itself is engaged in a challenge to the Directive. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 6:02 pm
J. 857, 870-73 (2009); United States v. [read post]
15 Jun 2018, 6:12 am
Copland (Manhattan Institute), on Thursday, June 14, 2018 Tags: Boards of Directors, Glass Lewis, Institutional Investors, Institutional voting, ISS, Proxy advisors, Proxy voting, Shareholder activism, Shareholder rights, Shareholder voting [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 3:07 pm
(3) Data retention remains doubtful in terms of fundamental rights compliance: in the ECHR, S & Marper v UK questions mass monitoring of the unconvicted, Copland v UK reiterates that traffic data is covered by Article 8 (as I argue here); the German courts are considering various challenges (summarised by Digital Rights Ireland: 1 | 2), and DRI itself is engaged in a challenge to the Directive. [read post]
17 Mar 2007, 6:23 pm
The recent Parker v. [read post]
