Search for: "Identification Devices v. United States"
Results 41 - 60
of 350
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2022, 1:29 am
Davis said the technology’s “advanced surveillance capabilities such as facial recognition, person tracking and gender identification” could threaten civil liberties and potentially national security. [read post]
8 Jul 2022, 2:42 pm
From a Justice Department press release in U.S. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2022, 4:02 am
Introduction: Robert Burrell Australia/NZ is probably unusual b/c abandonment plays 3 distinct roles: (1) not a purely rhetorical device. 1863 case: from the moment you first use a TM, you have a property right—no goodwill, no reputation required. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 6:54 am
Subsequently, harder, thematic due diligence requirements have taken form through new measures on forced labour in the United States, legislation on child labour and conflict minerals due diligence passed in Switzerland, and proposals for EU batteries and deforestation regulations. [read post]
22 Jun 2022, 4:25 am
(quoting United States v. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 2:09 pm
Ever since the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert v. [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 5:24 pm
The rate of pay required for non-exempt employees is the regular rate during the pay period the leave is taken if the employer uses the workweek method, or alternatively the employer can use a 90-day lookback for determining the average regular rate, that is generally the same as with the normal state paid sick leave law (unless the employer has any flat-sum bonuses involved, in which case the employer will need to use the Alvarado-method of calculating the regular rate, as detailed here). [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:03 am
The court rejected defendants’ argument as an “effort to blend together the identification-of-a-trade-secret element and the misappropriation element, when “only discovery will reveal exactly what the defendants are up to. [read post]
25 May 2022, 9:01 pm
Securities Litigation, 768 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2014) (violations of Section 303 do not give rise to private right of action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5) with Stratte-McClure v. [read post]
15 May 2022, 9:11 pm
March 10, 2021 | Mismatched Gender Markers on State ID Cards | Scholar argues for simpler processes to change gender on identification cards. [read post]
15 May 2022, 4:48 pm
On 12 May 2022, there were hearings in the cases of Lee -v- Brown before Collins Rice J and MPL -v- WSZ before Saini J. [read post]
17 Mar 2022, 6:00 am
In a first-degree murder case, the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s challenges to (1) the validity of a search warrant for his home; (2) the trial court’s refusal to suppress electronic monitoring data from a GPS unit the defendant was wearing at the time of the offense; (3) the trial court’s refusal to allow him to cross examine a witness; (4) the admission of expert testimony concerning firearms identification and examination: (5) the trial… [read post]
12 Mar 2022, 12:34 pm
See United States v. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 1:38 pm
See United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2022, 7:54 am
In Section 2202, the PRA provides that the United States owns “Presidential records. [read post]
28 Dec 2021, 10:57 pm
"Apple's smartphone market share in the Netherlands (26%) is far lower than in the United States, and the Dutch ACM very appropriately explains that mobile app developers are facing an Apple-Google duopoly (without using that term--at least I couldn't find in the summary).Finally, here's the Coring v. [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 9:00 am
There are no mandatory data retention laws in the United States of America. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 9:00 pm
HB 2380 allows proper licensees to sell beer and wine through self-pouring, automated devices. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 9:00 pm
HB 2380 allows proper licensees to sell beer and wine through self-pouring, automated devices. [read post]
26 Sep 2021, 4:55 pm
The insurance company breached section 5-1(e) of GDPR (“personal data shall be… kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary”) when it kept the personal data of 1917 prospects who had not had contact with the company for more than three years, 1405 of which for over five years. [read post]
