Search for: "State v. Holder"
Results 5841 - 5860
of 7,211
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2012, 3:04 am
After the jump a few words about: Holder v. [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 1:00 am
See General Foods Corporation v. [read post]
5 Jan 2023, 5:23 pm
DiRuzza v. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 8:45 pm
(IP tango) Europe IP work disrupted by volcano (Managing Intellectual Property) When the dog expires - General Court decision in Rodd & Gunn Australia Ltd v OHIM (IPKat) Questions emerge over undisclosed terms of new EPO president’s contract (IAM) OHIM’s case law review for 2009 now available (Class 46) Gala and Golden Delicious share latest GI (Class 46) Bad Kissinger gets no GI protection as Commission strikes out German mass application (IPKat) European Commission… [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 8:30 am
“He was also counsel in CCR’s legal challenges to the ‘material support’ statute (Holder v. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 8:30 am
“He was also counsel in CCR’s legal challenges to the ‘material support’ statute (Holder v. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 2:27 pm
That development is important not merely for its internal effects but for what it might offer to other states as a model of legitimating constitutionalism (and the construction of constitutional states) that varies in fundamental respects from the forms and expression of constitutionalism and the construction of constitutional states in the West. [read post]
18 Jul 2020, 4:57 pm
As a result, on May 27, 2020, the Secretary of State announced that the PRC had fundamentally undermined Hong Kong’s autonomy and certified and reported to the Congress, pursuant to sections 205 and 301 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, as amended, respectively, that Hong Kong no longer warrants treatment under United States law in the same manner as United States laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1, 1997. [read post]
6 Apr 2023, 8:04 pm
" But NRA v. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 9:01 pm
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did not simply allow arbitrary actions by state actors—or not only that. [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 9:29 pm
For both rights holders and online platforms, it’s a case of watch this space! [read post]
14 Mar 2009, 6:55 am
(C.M.) v. [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 9:29 pm
For both rights holders and online platforms, it’s a case of watch this space! [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 9:00 pm
Holder, 626 F. [read post]
19 Dec 2009, 4:03 pm
Louisiana, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned the presumption announced in Michigan v. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 11:17 am
Justice Dalveer BhandariSupreme Court of IndiaThe Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 6:51 am
Highland v. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 4:22 am
In R (on the application of Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 56, [2021] All ER (D) 53 (Dec), the Supreme Court found there was no positive obligation on the state to provide the option of an ‘X’ gender category on passports. [read post]
19 Sep 2022, 4:25 am
When parties have gone outside the boundaries that the state has set, it makes sense that the state would treat the impermissible act as if it never occurred. [read post]
