Search for: "Running v. USA" Results 481 - 500 of 1,120
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2015, 11:19 am by Timothy Edgar
 Even in the short run, this strategy is unlikely to succeed. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 11:38 am by Elina Saxena, Quinta Jurecic
Once “staples of the Cold War,” these run-ins will likely become more common as relations between the United States and both China and Russia remain tense. [read post]
27 Oct 2015, 4:48 pm
" Having left the Episcopal Church (USA) on account of its adoption of blasphemous marriage rites, I no longer even have a formal tie to the wider Communion -- not that the tie was all that firm, anyway, once V. [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 4:23 pm by INFORRM
This post concerns the Opinion of the Advocate General in Case C-362/14: Schrems v. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 9:50 am by Jason M. Halper
Energy (USA), LLC, 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013), declined to extend deference to, and disagreed with, the SEC’s interpretation of the Dodd-Frank protections. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 12:52 pm by Dean Freeman
Additional Resources: High-speed police chases have killed thousands of innocent bystanders, July 30, 2015, By Thomas Frank, USA Today More Blog Entries: De Los Santos v. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 11:30 pm by Old Fox
Socialists would have redistributed goals from Team USA to Japan in order to promote fairness. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 12:36 pm
The first of these is GO Outdoors Ltd v Skechers USA Inc II [2015] EWHC 1405 (Ch), a 19 May decision of Mrs Justice Rose, sitting in the Chancery Division, England and Wales, on an appeal from a decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 1:03 pm
The first of these is GO Outdoors Ltd v Skechers USA Inc II [2015] EWHC 1405 (Ch), a 19 May decision of Mrs Justice Rose, sitting in the Chancery Division, England and Wales, on an appeal from a decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 10:19 am by NCC Staff
(The actual malice test goes back to the Supreme Court’s landmark New York Times v. [read post]