Search for: "California v. Cooks" Results 481 - 500 of 648
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Oct 2018, 9:58 am by Kevin Kaufman
California Governor Jerry Brown (D) for colorful vetoes of targeted tax breaks which have helped California maintain some semblance of a broad tax base and improved its fiscal position. [read post]
7 Nov 2022, 9:06 am by Tom Smith
The worst thing would be a hung election, with respect to control of the Senate, for example, like the 2000 Bush v. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 9:07 am by Glenn
Tech business news these days is dominated by headlines about the trial of United States v. [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 6:02 pm by Duncan
(IP Law Blog) US Copyright – Decisions District Court C D California: Politico’s use of Henley songs copyright infringement – not fair use: Henley v Devore (Copyright Litigation Blog) (Electronic Frontier Foundation) 8th Cir: Famous Dave’s magic words: copyright assignments and settlement agreements: Thomsen v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 1:10 pm by Michelle Yeary
  For example, they dismiss the holding in Dvora v. [read post]
21 Jan 2021, 12:54 pm by John Elwood
Cook County, Illinois, 20-450, involve the Trump administration’s “public charge rule. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 6:31 am
(IP Law Blog)     US Copyright – Decisions District Court C D California: Politico’s use of Henley songs copyright infringement - not fair use: Henley v Devore (Copyright Litigation Blog) (Electronic Frontier Foundation) 8th Cir: Famous Dave’s magic words: copyright assig [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 1:21 pm
Fla. 2011)(Cook) Yet another district court judge reached the opposite result in Harrison, concluding that since it takes two parties "to stipulate" that the cruise lines agreement to waive a choice of law provision was ineffective, thereby causing the contract to run afoul of Thomas. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 4:11 am by Maxwell Kennerly
Bethea, 718 A.2d 1187, 1190-95 (Md. 1998) (attorney malpractice action was not barred on the grounds of nonmutual collateral estoppel because it is unjust to preclude a malpractice action when the clients may have been misinformed as to the actual worth of their case); Cook v. [read post]