Search for: "Doe Defendants 1 to 20" Results 4001 - 4020 of 8,960
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Dec 2016, 2:18 pm by Michael S. Levine
”  In finding that the insurer had a duty to defend Portal Healthcare against the class action, the district court (whose decision was affirmed) emphasized that (1) “‘publication’ does not hinge on the would-be-publisher’s intent”, (2) that “unintentional publication is still publication” and (3) that “publication does not hinge on third-party access. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am by Ben
2016 - it's been another frantic copyright year - and buzz words and themes for the twelve months included 'the value gap' between the content industries and the technology giants, linking, that 'new public', fair use, 'transformative' art, and the ongoing reform of copyright laws - in Europe, and in particular reforms to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the USA. [read post]
24 Dec 2016, 4:04 am
does the use give rise to consumer deception, take unfair advantage or cause detriment? [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 9:01 pm by John Dean
Trump has made it clear he does not like briefing books, nor does he read history. [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 10:00 pm by Giesela Ruehl
Reasoning No 1 (Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia): State security. [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 1:48 pm by Rick St. Hilaire
[B]ased on their historical characteristics, the Defendant Properties most likely were excavated from areas under ISIL control. [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 8:05 am by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.
More Blog Posts: Dismissal of Rollerblading Injury Case Affirmed by Appellate Court, South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog, published December 1, 2016. [read post]
18 Dec 2016, 10:02 pm by Barry Barnett
If it does, will the court of appeals sustain that assessment? [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 12:06 pm by Leanne Ta and Aaron Rubin
Section 230’s Application to “Providers and Users” Plaintiffs sometimes argue along with the “publisher or speaker” argument that Section 230 does not apply where the defendant does not fall within the category of “providers and users of an interactive computer service,” as required under Section 230(c)(1). [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 10:02 am by Burton A. Padove
The plaintiff sued the defendant, seeking compensation for medical expenses ($30,000), as well as lost wages and future lost income ($1 million). [read post]