Search for: "Does I & II"
Results 41 - 60
of 23,535
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2024, 5:11 am
Punishment (3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment (i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 3:30 am
However, the Court also ruled that the SEC lacked rulemaking authority under Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act because (i) the SEC failed to define the “fraud” it was seeking to prevent and there were an insufficient number of enforcement actions to support the necessity of the rulemaking, (ii) Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act does not permit rulemaking concerning disclosures or reporting, (iii) Section 206(4) does not authorize the SEC to issue… [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 1:40 pm
[ii] While the Supreme Court could always overrule itself, under present law, we think that the MQD does not apply to the FTC’s trade rule authority and, even if it did, that Congress clearly authorized the rule in the FTC Act as amended. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 7:30 am
Chapter Seven examines Articles II, III, and VI. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 5:50 am
In general, the best defences are: Legitimate Reasoning & No Undue Harm Section 163.1(6) of the Code states that if the material in question was produced for a legitimate reason related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art; and it does not pose an undue risk of harm to minors, then you cannot be convicted. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 5:01 am
Part II of the paper sets forth a rather basic theory of reputational injury, which I call "the ideational conception of reputational injury" or "the unrestricted ideational conception of reputational injury. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 7:30 am
Part I discusses interpretive and analytical tools from constitutional law and social science that Parts II and III use. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 7:00 am
I. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 7:00 am
I. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 10:30 pm
Indeed, it is built on four major axes: i) tackling discrimination against LGBTIQ people; ii) ensuring LGBTIQ people’s safety; iii) building LGBTIQ inclusive societies; iv) leading the call for LGBTIQ equality around the world. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 4:49 pm
… Schedule 1 Qualified Privilege Part I Statements having qualified privilege without explanation or contradiction A fair and accurate report of proceedings in public before a court anywhere in the world. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 9:30 am
The creators of this genAI technology were also included as John Doe defendants in the suit. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 8:16 am
“Biometric data” does not include the following unless the biometric data is used for identification purposes: (i) a digital or physical photograph; (ii) an audio or voice recording; or (iii) any data generated from a digital or physical photograph or an audio or video recording. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 9:00 pm
But what does zeal mean? [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 2:00 pm
Pam Karlan: Can you contrast Brown with what the Supreme Court does a dozen years later in Loving v. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 11:47 am
Does That Mean All Employees Can Soon Legally Use It? [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 8:58 am
This could be done by providing evidence that the practice: (i) does not materially degrade or threaten to materially degrade the BIAS of the general public; (ii) does not hinder consumer choice; (iii) does not impair competition, innovation, consumer demands, or investment; and (iv) does not impede any forms of expression, types of service, or points of view. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 8:55 am
In addition to regulating, as all law does, political liberalism theorizes the constitution as a procedure for the justification of the use of political power. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 4:30 am
Part II introduces the second grouping of reforms about the Supreme Court's docket. [read post]
2 Jun 2024, 10:14 am
That perception will prevent any possibility of perception of the trade mark as an indication of a specific industrial or commercial origin of the goodsThere are some instances in which Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR does play a relevant role, a recent example being ‘PABLO ESCOBAR’, but more often than not it is a ground that adds undue complexity to trade mark examinations.Having said that, the decision provides helpful guidance on the construction and application of the principles set… [read post]
