Search for: "State v. Holder"
Results 6301 - 6320
of 8,246
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2011, 10:04 am
P'ship v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 10:04 am
P'ship v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 9:58 am
This involved the ongoing case of Scarlet v Sabam in the European Court of Justice. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 8:23 pm
Hungar, it seems to me that RCA would matter, even under your view of the world, because if you think that Congress did not codify the existing state of the law as to the standard of proof and you think that section 282 was essentially silent as to the standard of proof, then the question is, what do we do? [read post]
ANTI-GUNS-ON-CAMPUS BLOWBACK: You know, I raised this issue with a Faculty Senate colleague and was…
18 Apr 2011, 8:18 pm
Holders of concealed carry permits in the U.S. are arrested for violent crimes at a rate five times lower than non-license holders (even lower than police officers in many states). [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 9:01 am
For the past decade, intellectual property rights holders have been fighting to maintain control over their product. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 7:44 am
Holder (No. 10-694). [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 4:03 am
Scarlet v SABAM The SABAM is the Belgian equivalent of PRS, a royalty collecting agency representing music artists. [read post]
17 Apr 2011, 11:03 pm
Cautious Co v. [read post]
16 Apr 2011, 8:40 pm
., v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 4:13 pm
United States, No. 1:10-cv-8435 (S.D.N.Y.) and Pedersen v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 2:52 pm
(Eugene Volokh) So holds Dearth v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 1:27 pm
The Court granted certiorari in Golan v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 12:49 pm
Agence France Presse v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 7:14 pm
Newton v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 1:35 pm
Adar v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 10:52 am
In Isaac v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 2:15 am
Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Sony Supply Chain Solutions (Europe) BV, formerly Sony Logistics Europe BV (Case C-153/10); [2011] WLR (D) 130 “A person who made customs declarations in his own name and on his own behalf could not rely on a binding tariff information of which he was not the holder, but which associated company on whose instructions he made those declarations. [read post]
