Search for: "DOE V US"
Results 501 - 520
of 95,919
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jun 2008, 7:48 pm
See id.; see also Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2022, 9:32 am
Better Use a Clickthrough Process, Not Email Notice–Alkutkar v. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 1:27 pm
See, e.g., Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 6:53 am
SIPC v. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 5:39 am
In Travers v. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 3:38 am
Noble House Home Furnishings, LLC v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 6:02 am
The word does not have a fixed legal signification. [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 1:14 pm
Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. [read post]
15 Mar 2021, 7:14 am
In Guilfoil v. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 9:16 am
Does that make the browser liable, under this ruling, or the publisher of the original page more deeply liable because it must be taken as general knowledge that anything on the web can be forwarded (not just linked to) through the browser used to view it? [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 4:59 am
Ownership of a trademark does, in certain circumstances, grant a right to use it. [read post]
20 Mar 2023, 6:00 am
In short, these services are not taxable as, depending on the service, they are not the purchase of software programs, they constitute the purchase of on-demand infrastructure (IaaS), the service does not contain a software program, the software program is not used in BC, the service is not used in BC, or the service is otherwise exempt under incidental exemptions in the PSTA. [read post]
27 Jan 2020, 9:28 am
Backpage * District Court Ruling Highlights Congress’ Hastiness To Pass ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’– Doe 1 v. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 8:00 am
The Court noted: "Since the law favors the free and unobstructed use of real property, a restrictive covenant must be strictly construed against those seeking to enforce it, and may not be given an interpretation extending beyond the clear meaning of its terms (see Witter v Taggart, 78 NY2d 234, 237-238; Wechsler v Gasparrini, 40 AD3d 976; Liebowitz v Forman, 22 AD3d 530, 531; Kaufman v Fass, 302 AD2d 497, 498, cert denied 540 US 1162 )." [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 8:00 am
" The Court noted: "Since the law favors the free and unobstructed use of real property, a restrictive covenant must be strictly construed against those seeking to enforce it, and may not be given an interpretation extending beyond the clear meaning of its terms (see Witter v Taggart, 78 NY2d 234, 237-238; Wechsler v Gasparrini, 40 AD3d 976; Liebowitz v Forman, 22 AD3d 530, 531; Kaufman v Fass, 302 AD2d 497, 498, cert denied 540 US… [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 4:38 am
Co. v. [read post]
27 May 2016, 5:00 am
The court should have ruled that as a matter of law, on these facts, this type of use of an API does not constitute infringement. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 12:50 pm
8 Sep 2010, 6:36 pm
This result was probably preordained in light of Fontanetta v Doe, 73 AD3d 78 (2d Dept [...] [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 8:22 am
Perry v. [read post]
