Search for: "New v. New"
Results 6001 - 6020
of 166,026
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2023, 12:21 pm
The Supreme Court decision in SOCAN v CAIP was a landmark copyright decision that broke new ground on the liability (or immunities) of ISPs for copyright infringement in Canada and in formulating the territorial scope of the Copyright Act. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 9:30 pm
New from Cornell University Press: A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War, by Isabel V. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 7:47 pm
(Eugene Volokh) I’m planning on filing a pro bono amicus brief before the New Mexico Supreme Court, in support of Elane Photography in the Elane Photography v. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 6:38 am
Additional Resources: How A Simple Bump Can Cause An Insidious Brain Injury, January 7, 2016, NPR, By Daniel Zwerdling More Blog Entries: Wilkins v. [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 2:48 pm
Co. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 12:17 pm
(UK) Ltd. v J.P. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 4:41 pm
In State of New Mexico v. [read post]
18 Aug 2021, 12:37 pm
Specifically, a covered entity must require proof from: (i) employees; (ii) patrons; (iii) interns; (iv) volunteers; and (v) contractors who are residents of New York City. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 6:57 pm
The case is Messier v. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 7:50 am
Without dissent, the justices in Porter v. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 5:22 pm
Remember the Teller v. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 6:30 am
Duncan Kennedy, The Bitter Ironies of Williams V. [read post]
1 May 2013, 6:13 am
Here are the new materials in United States v. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 3:12 pm
Super 7 Media, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 5:28 pm
v=I0tE6T-ecmg [read post]
24 Sep 2024, 6:51 am
These abilities are rooted in the holding in Dusky v. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 10:17 am
Sweeney v. [read post]
14 Jul 2007, 11:29 am
Defendants have not yet answered.The case cite is Ormsby v. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 7:38 am
New York does not recognize all that many privileges. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
