Search for: "PPS, Inc." Results 401 - 420 of 1,019
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Mar 2016, 4:00 am by Malcolm Mercer
Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services), [2006] 2 SCR 32 Celanese Canada Inc. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 7:15 am by Barry Sookman
The intellectual property chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is certainly misunderstood. [read post]
24 Dec 2015, 4:00 am by Simon Lewis
(Samek; THE DALHOUSIE LAW JOURNAL June 1985 pp 195-210 In “Artificial intelligence comes of age” N. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 9:03 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771-72 (1976). [read post]
18 Nov 2015, 4:00 am by Administrator
Layton, Ethics and Canadian Criminal Law (2001), at pp. 163-164; R. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 1:51 am by INFORRM
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia In an important judgment in the case of Duffy v Google Inc  ([2015] SASC 170) Blue J in the South Australian Supreme Court found that Google is legally responsible when its search results link to defamatory content. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Cohen, Freedom of Religion, Inc.: Whose Sovereignty? [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 4:00 am by Ken Chasse
Sapient Canada Inc. 2014 ONSC 2314 (paras. 145-157); and, R. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 4:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Dollar Financial Group, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1207 (Bufil) [“a class is not inappropriate merely because each member at some point may be required to make an individual showing as to eligibility for recovery”]); Benton, at pp. 725–728 [reversing order denying certification despite evidence that some putative class members received breaks].) [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 4:00 am by Ken Chasse
Sapient Canada Inc. 2014 ONSC 2314 (paras. 145-157); and, R. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 8:02 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The State Defendant describes this action as "novel" and "highly complex" (Logue Affirmations at pp. 6-7, 9, 11 and 24). [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am by Marty Lederman
 First, a quick note on the government's new final rules regarding the religious accommodation (including its extension to some for-profit employers such as Hobby Lobby, Inc.). [read post]