Search for: "Does 1-73"
Results 41 - 60
of 2,249
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Mar 2024, 9:02 am
Albrecht House Bill 61 amends Utah Code sections 73-1-21 and 73-2-1. [read post]
17 Mar 2024, 6:18 pm
The Introduction considers the relevance of preparatory documents to the memorialization of intention and its related problems: (1) should text be burdened by an individual or group's intentions? [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 12:10 pm
The report does mention selling through social media, but does not include it in the relevant market. [read post]
2 Mar 2024, 6:08 am
First, a set of Draft Principles were circulated in November 2010.[1] After a period set aside for public comment and following revision of the text,[2] the SRSG circulated the final version of the UNGP (with an included Official Commentary) in March 2011 annexed to his (final) 2011 SRSG Report,[3] the text of which was substantially revised from the circulated November 2010 Draft. [read post]
1 Mar 2024, 3:00 am
The report does not indicate whether drugs or alcohol were involved, or simply incompetence. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 10:30 am
E.g., 6-ER-972-73. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 12:28 am
”[1] – ‘Stable Diffusion Litigation’ (website created by attorneys on behalf of the artists) “If a work is transformative…then it’s not a violation of copyright and the plaintiff simply has no ground on which to stand to file a copyright infringement case…[T]hose who refuse to acknowledge advancements in technology and instead fight against them are like whittlers mad at power tools. [read post]
25 Feb 2024, 6:25 pm
TerrorismTracker provides event records on terrorist attacks since 1 January 2007. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 12:34 pm
Doe, 23-373Issue: Whether the First Amendment and this court’s decision in NAACP v. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 9:05 pm
” The evidence is that amortization does not contribute directly to “value-relevance”[8] for it does not directly affect share prices. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 7:46 am
In particular: [1.] [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 3:30 am
In any event, responsibility does not require a formal agreement between the controllers as regards the purposes and means of processing (para 44). [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
Cas. at 26.In his opening brief, Donald Trump appeared to preserve this argument, though just barely: He didn’t devote any space to it.[1] His reply brief does even less with it than that, offering only the ambiguous sentence “that section 3 may be enforced only though the congressionally enacted methods of enforcement,” without even arguing that Chief Justice Chase got it right in Griffin’s Case. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 5:50 am
Furthermore, the Court did indicate that the test of plausibility must be applied to key elements of the definition of the right (see Ukraine v, Russia (2017), para. 75: “in order to determine whether the rights for which Ukraine seeks protection are at least plausible, it is necessary to ascertain whether there are sufficient reasons for considering that the other elements set out in Article 2, paragraph 1, such as the elements of intention or knowledge noted above (see paragraph… [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm
Moab Partners LP,[1] a closely followed case that ought to address whether a purported failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of U.S. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 1:08 pm
Under s.1(1) if a publication does not cause, or is not likely to cause, serious harm to reputation it is not defamatory. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 10:30 pm
As Bulgaria is not a member of the Istanbul Convention, recital 17 of the Qualification Directive does not aid qualifying the Convention as ‘relevant’ under Article 78(1) TFEU. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm
See, e.g., America's Constitution: A Biography 170-73, 556-57 (2006); Akhil Amar, America's Unwritten Constitution 17-19, 404 (2012); see also Akhil Amar, The Words That Made Us 472-465 (2021). [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 2:29 pm
"1. [read post]
The GDPR as a cyber risk management system: the ECJ cautiously tackles data breaches in the NAP case
22 Jan 2024, 10:30 pm
To preserve the effectiveness of Art 82(1), it is the controller who bears the burden of proving the appropriateness of TOMs in light of the security principle enshrined in Art 5(1)(f) and the rules of general application contained in Arts 24(1) and 32(1) at stake in actions for damages (paras 50-52). [read post]
