Search for: "State of Maine v. Hastings"
Results 41 - 60
of 76
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Nov 2016, 12:25 pm
The formation of a larger bench is a much-belated response to the request of a 5-judge bench of the Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v Jaibir Singh[3]for a larger bench for reconsideration of the BWSSB verdict. [read post]
25 Nov 2016, 7:11 pm
The formation of a larger bench is a much-belated response to the request of a 5-judge bench of the Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v Jaibir Singh[3]for a larger bench for reconsideration of the BWSSB verdict. [read post]
18 Aug 2009, 6:18 am
Below is the text of the main part of the comment letter followed by the list of the eighty professors. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 10:37 am
Mo. 2007).Maine: Violette v. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 9:01 pm
In Gill v. [read post]
14 Sep 2022, 2:59 pm
United States v. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 11:59 pm
Bartholomew Verdirame, Tony V. [read post]
25 Nov 2007, 7:20 am
Joseph, MI Phone: (616) 429-8939 E-mail: chadd@andrews.edu Grand Rapids CHADD 7269 De Costa Drive NE Rockford, MI 49341 Phone: 616-874-5662 E-mail: brauer@chartermi.net Web: http://www.chadd.org Hastings CHADD Hastings, MI Phone: (616) 948-8234 Washtenaw Area CHADD Ann Arbor, MI Phone: (734) 668-9995 CHADD of Eastern Wayne and Macomb Counties P.O. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 1:08 am
Much of the discussion involved the relevance of the Supreme Court's Inwood v. [read post]
24 May 2023, 6:37 am
Factual and Procedural Background The main facts of the case have been known for some time (and are detailed and periodically updated in a Just Security chronology). [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 9:01 pm
Washington and Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
19 Apr 2020, 9:00 pm
A column by Fellow Verdict columnist Michael Dorf last week highlights a main point of attack (and one shared by other critics): that the Court distorted and misapplied the considerations that govern the kinds of remedies that are appropriate for federal courts to provide, and along the way may also have misinterpreted (if not made up out of whole cloth) Wisconsin state law requirements. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 9:09 am
See Oster v. [read post]
12 May 2023, 3:00 am
The functionality or ideas that lie behind the code is protected (SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1482 at §20-§37). [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 12:27 pm
This article is mostly about federal courts, because reviewing just what they do is daunting enough; but I occasionally cite relevant state cases, since many state courts seem to take an approach similar to that of the federal courts. [read post]
Guest Post: DABUS Gains Traction: South Africa Becomes First Country to Recognize AI-Invented Patent
4 Aug 2021, 2:30 pm
Notably, their application has been denied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), and the European Patent Office (EPO). [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 3:04 am
The full list of resolved complaints from last week: Mr Peter Reynolds v The Mail on Sunday, Clause 1, 20/04/2012; Samaritans, Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, Sane and PAPYRUS Prevention of Young Suicide v The Sun, Clause 5, 19/04/2012; Mr Adam Stephens v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 19/04/2012; Mr Peter Reynolds v Harborough Mail, Clause 1, 19/04/2012; Mrs Drene Brown v Scunthorpe Telegraph, Clause 1, 19/04/2012; A woman v Hastings and St… [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 8:30 am
Bookstores, g., United States v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 4:07 am
Walsh, et al.; SEC v. [read post]
1 Feb 2018, 10:52 am
The legal basis for holding companies accountable under human rights law has posed a number of theoretical challenges.[8] While all the complexities cannot be addressed here, several questions are noted by way of example:· What is the role of non-state actors such as corporations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the main human rights covenants? [read post]
