Search for: "State v. K. K. C." Results 41 - 60 of 2,267
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Aug 2015, 11:30 am
  In 2011, we took a 50-state (and more) look at who’s adopted comment k and how. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 9:32 am by John J Downes
The risk arose out of what C had chosen to do not as a result of the state of the premises and therefore there was no breach of duty. [read post]
25 Apr 2023, 9:56 pm by Kurt R. Karst
”  Section 524B(a) states: A person who submits an application or submission under section 510(k), 513, 515(c), 515(f), or 520(m) [i.e., 510(k), premarket approval application (PMA), Product Development Protocol (PDP), De Novo, or Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE)] for a device that meets the definition of a cyber device under this section shall include such information as [FDA] may require to ensure that such cyber device meets the cybersecurity… [read post]
6 Apr 2021, 9:20 am by Eric Goldman
Indeed, the court says that Section 230(c)(2)(A) preempts all of the state law claims other than YouTube’s failure to pay. [read post]
19 Feb 2008, 9:01 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Zafar & Ors v R [2008] EWCA Crim 184 (13 February 2008) K v R [2008] EWCA Crim 185 (13 February 2008) JT v R. [2008] EWCA Crim 183 (12 February 2008) Kelly, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 137 (08 February 2008) AS, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 138 (08 February 2008) High Court (Administrative Court) Hansford v Southampton Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 67 (Admin) (19 February 2008) Rashid, R (on the… [read post]
7 May 2021, 4:10 am
(f/k/a Trust Advisory Services, Ltd.), Defendants (Opinion, United States Di... [read post]