Search for: "T M v. K S" Results 421 - 440 of 1,835
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Mar 2020, 3:36 pm by Andrew Delaney
This is not a K-Mart "blue light special"State v. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 3:48 am by Peter Mahler
Why didn’t he reach out to Perkal before 2012, and certainly after 2009 upon the termination of Klein’s redemption option? [read post]
1 Mar 2020, 4:48 pm by INFORRM
Ireland The Irish Times has a piece entitled “Why you can’t publish a Weinstein #MeToo story in Ireland” – blaming Ireland’s “very restrictive libel regime”. [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 10:00 am by Rebecca Tushnet
[I’m not optimistic.] [read post]
23 Feb 2020, 9:54 am by Schachtman
”  When called for jury duty, she introduces herself as “I’m Daubert of Daubert versus Merrell Dow … ; I don’t want to sit on this jury and pretend that I can pass judgment on somebody when there is no justice. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 7:52 pm by Rob Robinson
If k is too small (e.g., k=1), it may be extremely difficult to achieve high recall. [read post]
3 Feb 2020, 12:42 pm by Elliot Setzer, William Ford
Responsibilities: Lawfare has emerged as the internet’s indispensable resource for information and analysis on the law of national security. [read post]
2 Feb 2020, 4:41 pm by INFORRM
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had previously suggested that use of Huawei’s equipment posed a spying risk, saying that “we won’t be able to share information” with nations that put it into their “critical information systems”. [read post]
18 Jan 2020, 6:30 am by Florian Mueller
At the heart of the single biggest issue there's the total absence, from the statute as well as the government's rationale, of the second eBay v. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 5:42 pm by Patricia Hughes
(I’m just finishing the last season of The Americans, about Russians spies in the United States who did incredible imitations of being American, all the time living next door to an FBI agent! [read post]
11 Jan 2020, 5:48 am by Joel R. Brandes
It affirmed the order granting respondent’s cross-motion for interim counsel fees to the extent of awarding her $200,000. [read post]