Search for: "J. Eddings" Results 5161 - 5180 of 6,777
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Aug 2010, 4:34 am
In terms of its own data, the “study confirm[ed] a strong and significant relationship between acute enteric infection and subsequent IBS symptoms. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 12:44 am by John Collins
The judge held that the “undue burden” concept in English law (particularly as outlined by Arnold J in Eli Lilly v Janssen in 2014) was not particularly helpful under Australian law. [read post]
11 Jul 2020, 3:19 am by Jeanne Huang
Comments: Regarding substituted service, the Facebook judgment provides that[4] ‘[t]his Court has held, in circumstances analogous to the present, that an order for substituted service may be made under either r 10.24 or r 10.49 : Commissioner of Taxation v Zeitouni (2013) 306 ALR 603 at [60] (Katzmann J); see also: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Kokos International Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2035 at [18] (French J); Commissioner of Taxation v Oswal [2012] FCA 1507… [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 12:12 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
" The Federalist No. 78, at 465 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 6:27 pm by John Palley
Robertson and David Shea for Plaintiffs and Appellants. 92*92 OPINION YEGAN, J. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 6:33 am
In the first Newzbin case, [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch), in March 2010, Kitchin J found that Newzbin knew the vast majority of the files so indexed were commercial products protected by, and infringing, copyright. [read post]
3 Apr 2016, 4:23 pm by INFORRM
Her comments will come as a relief to many, after Ed Vaizey announced that the practice would constitute copyright infringement. [read post]
29 Jan 2023, 6:00 am by Lawrence Solum
Introduction  It used to be the case that an endless investigation of the difference between holding and dictum was a central preoccupation of the first year of law school. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 4:59 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  The Eighth Circuit rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that (i) the conference call statements caused a “gradual” stock-price increase between September and December 2010, and (ii) that the December 14, 2010, “corrective disclosure” suggested that the conference call statements “maintain[ed] an inflated stock price. [read post]