Search for: "State v. Daves" Results 401 - 420 of 623
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 May 2010, 5:03 pm by Brandon Bartels
CoOp contributor Dave Hoffman stated: “So it is an empirical question – isn’t it? [read post]
14 Mar 2015, 3:20 am by WIMS
 Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> AmerGen Energy Company, LLC v. [read post]
4 Aug 2021, 2:30 pm by Jason Rantanen
”[4] [1] Hay v African Gold Recovery Co 1902 TS 232 p 233. [2] University of Southampton’s Applications [2006] RPC 567 (CA) paras 22–25. [3] Bertie Van Zyl (Pty) Ltd v Minister for Safety and Security 2010 (2) SA 181 (CC) para 21. [4] Josh Taylor, “I’m sorry Dave I’m afraid I invented that: Australian court finds AI systems can be recognised under patent law,” The Guardian (July 30, 2021)… [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 4:17 am by Edith Roberts
Commentary on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 5:10 pm by Kalvis Golde
’” A list of this week’s featured petitions is below: Daves v. [read post]
6 May 2009, 7:26 pm
NSSTA's backward step: Re-focus on &quot;protecting, preserving and promoting&quot; structured settlement laws already enacted in the United States Internal Revenue Code and 47 state structured settlement protection statutes; Consolidate and transition NSSTA's administrative, financial and political strengths. [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
The IPCC arrested a former Scotland Yard officer last Tuesday: former Scotland Yard officer DCS Dave Cook. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 12:11 pm by INFORRM
On the same day, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1073, dismissing by a majority the appeal from the decision of Nicol J, which struck out the Appellant’s claims in libel and data protection as abuse. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 10:39 am by Geoffrey Rapp
Shaft, Implementing the settlement of State of North Dakota v. [read post]
3 Jul 2007, 6:22 am
" We cited nearly unanimous appellate precedent, from the Supreme Court on down, to the effect that:A federal court in diversity is not free to engraft onto those state rules exceptions or modifications which may commend themselves to the federal court, but which have not commended themselves to the State in which the federal court sits.Day &amp; Zimmerman, Inc. v. [read post]