Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Moore" Results 621 - 640 of 1,151
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jan 2019, 2:48 pm by John Elwood
United States, 17-7496, and Moore v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
  With advances in computer technology making genetic testing exponentially cheaper and more detailed as times passes (see Moore’s law), more and more genetic variability in the efficacy of prescription drugs is bound to be discovered. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 4:29 am
We don't know what this stuff means, and unless you're a doctor, chances are that you don't either.But we're pretty sure of one thing - that kind of jargon has very precise medical meaning to the people who do understand what's in these package inserts. [read post]
27 Jan 2013, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
Next week in the courts On 28 January 2013, the Court of Appeal (Moore-Bick, Aikens and Black LJJ) will give judgment in the libel costs case of Henry v NGN. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 4:18 am by Marie Louise
Hise (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) Supreme Court confirms that a download is not a performance: ASCAP v United States (1709 Copyright Blog) (Ars Technica) District Court S D New York: Court nukes another mass defendant file-sharing lawsuit: Digiprotect v Does (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) District Court E D Virginia calls out copyright trolls’ coercive business model, threaten sanctions K-Beech v Does 1–85 (EFF) (Ars Technica) District Court… [read post]
29 May 2020, 4:00 am by Ken Chasse
[v] But, to contrary appearances, on February 27, 2020, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) released its Priority Planning Committee’s Strategic Plan (LSO’s Treasurer (“President” in other provinces), Malcolm Mercer, being the Chair of the Committee). [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
  There is a story about the case in the Press Gazette. 18.10.11  SIOC/11/1111 Lady Moore v Associated Newspapers Ltd. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 4:00 am by Amy Salyzyn
Moving to the 1980s: it took empowering the courts with the Charter before bar entrance requirements banning non-citizens and bans on inter-provincial law firms were removed (Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia [1989] 1 SCR 143 and Black v Law Society of Alberta [1989] 1 SCR 591, respectively). [read post]