Search for: "Tran v. State" Results 441 - 460 of 1,219
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 May 2018, 9:30 am
Amy: Back in 1994, we represented Dee Farmer in front of the Supreme Court (Farmer v. [read post]
12 May 2018, 9:11 am
This symposium explores these and other issues.Keynote Lecture: James V Feinerman, Associate Dean for Transnational Programs, Co-Director, Georgetown Law Asia, and James M. [read post]
12 May 2018, 7:01 am by Rachel Bercovitz
Reflecting on the Supreme Court’s April 24 decision in Jesner v. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 1:54 am by Tobias Lutzi
Yesterday, the Court declared this application inadmissible as Art 4 of Protocol No 7, according to both its wording and the Court’s previous case law, ‘only concerned “courts in the same State”‘ (see the English Press Release). [35.] [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 7:24 am
Instead of veering towards such a transformation, the government decided to rely once again on its preferred model, stimulating growth through investment, exports and subsidies to state-owned enterprises (SOEs), operating outside of China on a regional scale, via BRI. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 4:00 am by Ken Chasse
I asked a judge in Beijing (my wife assisting as interpreter) his views of the judiciary’s state of independence. [read post]
23 Jan 2018, 4:34 am
Multilateralism v Bilateralism: What’s in it for international IP regulation? [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 10:47 am by Jeremy Malcolm
This included a brief from 17 leading economists [PDF] in the case of Eldred v Ashcroft, which was an (ultimately unsuccessful) legal challenge to the U.S. copyright term extension law. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 10:47 am by Jeremy Malcolm
This included a brief from 17 leading economists [PDF] in the case of Eldred v Ashcroft, which was an (ultimately unsuccessful) legal challenge to the U.S. copyright term extension law. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 6:34 am by Joy Waltemath
It found this to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Zipes v Trans World Airlines, Inc., holding that “filing a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, but a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling. [read post]