Search for: "United States of America v. E" Results 541 - 560 of 1,947
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 May 2017, 6:26 am by Kate Howard
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 6:38 am by John Mikhail
”  This statement sounds very much like the interpretive principle underlying one of John Marshall’s most famous remarks in McCulloch v. [read post]
2 Jan 2022, 4:01 pm
The reason for our nonconformity is that “the United States has long sought to protect the property of its citizens abroad as part of a defense of America’s free enterprise system. [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 8:22 am by Rob Robinson
Read the complete article at Schrems 2.0: Standard Contractual Clauses Declared Valid by EU Advocate General Introduction and Conclusion from Opinion from the European Court of Justice Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard ØE Delivered on 19 December 2019 (Case C-311/18) Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems, interveners: The United States of America, Electronic Privacy Information Centre, BSA Business… [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 1:20 pm by Eric Schweibenz
  In the ID, ALJ Gildea determined that Samsung had not violated Section 337 in connection with the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain multi-layer ceramic capacitors by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. [read post]
8 Nov 2007, 7:56 am
United Cerebral Palsy has compiled a comprehensive Resource Guide for individuals with cerebral palsy in Colorado. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 1:17 pm by WIMS
Circuit, Case No. 11-1302, EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. [read post]
13 Jan 2008, 6:36 am
To take the best-known precedent, after World War II the United States prosecuted German government lawyers in the second round of Nuremberg trials. [read post]
3 Jul 2020, 9:22 am by Angelo A. Paparelli
Stated differently, E-1 and E-2 entrants presumably do not undermine the U.S. economy and they apparently “facilitate [America’s] immediate and continued economic recovery” (or they would have been included in the ban), but — counter-factually — L-1 visa holders somehow threaten our economic well-being, even though they are often owned and operated by Americans and employ U.S. workers. [read post]