Search for: "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT v. US " Results 501 - 520 of 7,782
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Apr 2023, 6:13 am by Eugene Volokh
Such litigants must confidentially inform the other parties and the court of their true identity, but the identity may not appear in the court records. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 5:55 am by Michael Dreeben
Israel’s Supreme Court instead created its power to invalidate laws passed by its legislature through a “constitutional revolution” accomplished using its own decisions. [read post]
8 Apr 2023, 5:41 am by Mavrick Law Firm
”   An employer must prove that the employees could use the information to gain an unfair advantage. [read post]
6 Apr 2023, 2:57 am by Lisa Meller and Suhani Mangal
Begum v Maran (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 326 Mr Mollah had fallen to his death whilst working on the demolition of a defunct oil tanker in a shipyard in Bangladesh. [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 2:22 am by INFORRM
  First, that parts of the cases should be struck out because they relied on documents that were confidential and second that the whole case should be thrown out because limitation has expired. [read post]
28 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
This summary must include (i) the person or persons affected; (ii) the date the incident was discovered and whether it is ongoing; (iii) whether any data was stolen, altered, accessed or used for any unauthorized purpose; (iv) the effect of the incident on the entity’s operations; and (v) whether the incident has been remediated or is currently being remediated. [read post]
On 16 March 2022, the High Court of England and Wales handed down its judgment following the FRAND trial in InterDigital v Lenovo. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 8:18 am by Nicholas Round (Bristows)
On 16 March 2023, the High Court of England and Wales handed down its judgment following the FRAND trial in InterDigital v Lenovo. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 4:40 am by Phil Dixon
Here, though, “Sueiro committed the crime using an electronic device just days before the magistrate judge issued the initial warrant. [read post]