Search for: "In Re: Watson v."
Results 41 - 60
of 364
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Sep 2021, 1:02 am
Under the cover of night, without a single word, the Supreme Court effectively extinguished Roe v. [read post]
29 Jul 2021, 8:04 am
Watson Lab’ys, Inc., 874 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. [read post]
1 Apr 2021, 9:03 pm
” Walters highlighted that in Gundy v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 4:17 pm
AIALA, Appellant, v. [read post]
15 Feb 2021, 5:28 am
In Chica v. [read post]
14 Jan 2021, 6:31 am
The Grand Chamber comprises a President, vice-president, 3 presidents of a 5th chamber, rapporteur, another 9 judges, appointed based on re-established lists (see Article 27 ECJ RP). [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 6:01 am
“We’re still writing our legacy,” he said. [read post]
24 Oct 2020, 3:42 pm
Principle #1: Human beings are not consistently rational actors Technology and the Virtues is such an important book, in part, because it re-centers the technology / ethics conversation on human beings, rather than on technology. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 4:28 pm
Note that there are two more cases pending Case C-746/18 H.K. v Prokurator (Opinion handed down by AG Pitruzzella 21 Jan 2020) as well as references from Germany from 2019 and Ireland from 2020. [read post]
21 Sep 2020, 11:31 am
Panama defines it as data that cannot be re-identified by reasonable means. [read post]
21 Sep 2020, 6:43 am
Recent cases citing these rights together include Watson v Campos [2016] IEHC 18 (14 January 2016) [28] (Barrett J); Rooney v Shell E&P Ireland [2017] IEHC 63 (20 January 2017) [31]-[32] (Ní Raifeartaigh J); Ryanair v Channel 4 Television [2017] IEHC 651 (05 October 2017) [49]-[52] (Meenan J). [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 2:05 pm
And you can think about that as you frame your arguments, as you draft your briefs, when you’re reading the precedents and you’re looking back at old arguments about what the justices are concerned about and who’s concerned about what and when you’re trying to count to five, which is what you’re trying to do in the Supreme Court. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 4:28 pm
See Latisha Watson v. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 9:17 am
In determining the level of protection the GDPR requires, the Court re-iterated its stance from Schrems I and following the reasoning of its Advocate General in this case held that we are looking for a level of protection “essentially equivalent” to that in the EU- and bearing in mind that the GDPR is understood in the light of the EU Charter. [read post]
Del. high court says undisclosed post-merger role made Tower CEO self-interested, board ill informed
12 Jul 2020, 5:40 pm
In re Towers Watson & Co. [read post]
11 Jul 2020, 9:31 am
Well, friends, Watson v. [read post]
1 Apr 2020, 3:36 pm
Watson Pharm., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 1:33 pm
³Watson Laboratories, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2020, 8:44 am
Watson, Patch Staff. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 6:58 am
Watson, 936 F.3d 240, 244 (5th Cir. 2019). [read post]
