Search for: "Server v State"
Results 461 - 480
of 2,501
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Dec 2019, 6:10 am
Moreover, these stated reasons were at odds with the compliments Packin and another manager had given Davis just one week before her discharge: that she “was one of the stronger servers. [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 10:47 am
But, as Game & Technology Co. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 10:47 am
But, as Game & Technology Co. v. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 7:52 am
Family Court Act § 412(2)(d) was amended to read as follows: (d) "income cap" shall mean up to and including one hundred eighty-four thousand dollars of the payor's annual income; provided, however, beginning March first, two thousand twenty and every two years thereafter, the income cap amount shall increase by the sum of the average annual percentage changes in the consumer … [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 4:00 am
In 2012, the American Bar Association amended its Model Rules of Professional Conduct to add similar commentary, and a duty of technological competence has now been adopted by 37 states. [read post]
22 Nov 2019, 3:16 pm
In O’Grady v. [read post]
22 Nov 2019, 3:16 pm
In O’Grady v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 5:08 am
State v. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 11:29 am
Co. v. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 9:44 am
He stated during his deposition that he will be resigning from his position imminently—though, he stated, due to circumstances unrelated to his presence before Congress. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 5:19 am
v=lzatElTvT6U. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 4:05 am
Big point: the trial court dismissed the suit for “failure to state a claim. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 3:34 am
Finding for Goldman, Judge Forrest’s February decision was a stark contrast to the general agreement among U.S. courts that when a party embeds a photo into an article, and thus, does not actually create a copy of the image or store it on its server, there is no new “display” of the photo for copyright purposes, and as a result, no copyright infringement - although case such as Perfect 10, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 11:31 am
This portion of the act was written in response to the ruling of Microsoft Corp. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
In 1984, the Supreme Court created a now well-known “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule in United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 10:17 am
See United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 8:04 am
, v. [read post]
18 Oct 2019, 11:28 am
Rotkiske states that he had no knowledge of the proceeding and therefore failed to appear. [read post]
11 Oct 2019, 1:20 am
” Hammerschmidt v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 1:59 pm
Website owners and web scrapers will want to watch hi’Q Labs’ litigation against LinkedIn Corp. to see if these two characteristics are, in fact, compatible, something placed in doubt by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in HiQ Labs, Inc. v. [read post]
