Search for: "May Broadcasting Co. v. United States"
Results 41 - 60
of 395
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jun 2010, 9:16 am
Furthermore, beginning on March 1, 2007, all digital televisions ("DTVs") sold in the United States must be capable of receiving broadcasts compliant with the ATSC A/65 Standard. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 12:56 pm
AC-USA was not permitted to sell AcryliCon Systems outside of the United States without permission from AC-International. [read post]
13 May 2019, 5:21 am
Co. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 8:05 am
Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. [read post]
23 Nov 2022, 5:55 am
Indeed, the establishment of the inter-governmental Media Freedom Coalition, now numbering more than 50 States (12 of which are Commonwealth members, including the founding co-chairs, the United Kingdom and Canada) is a response to that threat. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 5:00 am
Co. 2005). [read post]
30 May 2010, 2:08 pm
(Case No. 07-1853cv), the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a Bankruptcy Code Provision [11 U.S.C. sec. 526(a)(4)] did not violate the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of attorney Zenas Zelotes. [read post]
4 Nov 2007, 7:08 pm
October 8, 2007:The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati granted the government's request for a full-panel hearing in United States v. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 7:54 am
Hirsh, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 4:00 am
See New York Times Co. v. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 10:25 am
In 1964 the US Supreme Court as New York Times Co v Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254 recognised that the First Amendment applied to state laws on defamation. [read post]
8 Jun 2021, 2:39 pm
Co., Inc., 102 F.3d 223, 226 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Nogueroas v. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 6:00 am
United States v. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 6:43 pm
Though an administrative law judge failed to explicitly apply the analysis set forth in Taft Broadcasting Co. for determining whether an employer and a union had reached a valid impasse, a divided three-member panel of the NLRB concluded that the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) by implementing its “last, best, and final offer” and unilaterally changing unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment in the absence of a valid impasse. [read post]
23 Jan 2010, 5:46 pm
Libertarians should fear government co-opting the private sector. [read post]
13 Dec 2007, 12:22 am
Co. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 2:00 pm
United States v. [read post]
28 May 2020, 4:04 pm
On May 28, 2020, in the case of United States v. [read post]
28 May 2020, 4:04 pm
On May 28, 2020, in the case of United States v. [read post]
1 Dec 2007, 9:17 am
Georgia Television Co. v. [read post]
