Search for: "People v. Mays" Results 5761 - 5780 of 44,345
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jun 2014, 4:52 am by SHG
A precedent may already have been set. [read post]
14 May 2009, 4:50 pm by Kevin Whitaker
In Does Technology Have to Trump Privacy Right,Nicole Black previously discussed the recently decided NY case of People v. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 10:00 pm
Designs can leave some people spinning aroundAlthough it is a case management decision, there are so many hints in the recent decision Spin Master v PMS [2017] EWHC 1477 (Pat) that Mr Justice Carr wants the judgment to get wider circulation. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 10:00 pm
Designs can leave some people spinning aroundAlthough it is a case management decision, there are so many hints in the recent decision Spin Master v PMS [2017] EWHC 1477 (Pat) that Mr Justice Carr wants the judgment to get wider circulation. [read post]
Among the long line of people waiting to enter the courtroom for Butina’s hearing were a group of Russian consular officials and journalists for Sputnik and RT. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 2:44 pm by Josh Blackman
Justice Gorsuch's concurrence pointed out: Members of this Court have long held that, "'[a]nytime a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.'" Maryland v. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 7:00 am by JONATHAN GLASSON QC, MATRIX
 Laws LJ observed at the outset of his judgment that “[t]he restrictive reading which the MPS would attribute to art 3 allows no real weight to be given to what may be thought of as fundamentals of a civilised constitution: the rule of law, and the security and protection of the people. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 7:14 pm by Shardha Rajam & Mihika Poddar
Today’s cake, may translate into other goods and services in the future, which may also be denied on the grounds of religious beliefs. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 9:13 am by Eric Goldman
The competitive keyword advertising meant that the defendant’s ads may have appeared above the trademark owner’s search results on search results pages. [read post]