Search for: "In re Interest of David M. et al."
Results 41 - 60
of 185
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Feb 2024, 4:29 am
Quick links Anna Bond, Lexology: Professor’s ‘anti-Zionist’ beliefs were protected: on Dr David Miller v University of Bristol [2024] ET 1400780/2022: we noted the case here. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 9:22 am
In a paper with the amazing David Hoffman and Alessandro Acquisti, we’re building a database of breach lawsuits and performing some interesting docket analysis on these suits. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 5:21 am
Jonge et al. knew that the files we posted on SoundCloud contained copyright-protected works is entirely irrelevant. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 8:33 am
Pamilar, et al. [read post]
10 Aug 2021, 2:49 pm
California, Santa Barbara), Janice Fine (Rutgers Univ.), Andrea M. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 4:13 pm
SARAH M. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 10:46 am
L&M Arts, et al., case number 3:10-cv-00953 in the U.S. [read post]
23 May 2022, 6:42 am
RCFP et al. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 10:25 am
Read the case if you're interested. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 3:19 am
[Pagliero et al. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2008, 8:50 am
You may read other coverage of this elsewhere, as in attendance were Aric Press of The American Lawyer, Leigh Jones of The National Law Journal, David Lat of AboveTheLaw, and other reporters. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 1:46 pm
L&M Arts, et al., case number 3:10-cv-00953 in the U.S. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 1:46 pm
L&M Arts, et al., case number 3:10-cv-00953 in the U.S. [read post]
21 Nov 2020, 4:11 pm
Behm et al. [read post]
2 May 2009, 10:12 am
JACK M. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 8:30 am
KEVIN M. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 9:46 am
David’s review this week draws attention to some interesting blogs. [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 9:50 am
John McCain, et al., v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 6:24 am
Katzin et al, Case No. 09-cv-02139 (D. [read post]
22 Sep 2020, 4:45 pm
We're supporting Julie Niesen et al.'s memorandum in support of jurisdiction, and asking the Ohio Supreme Court to consider the question, on which we think the Court of Appeals erred. [read post]
