Search for: "COOPER v. STATE" Results 6481 - 6500 of 7,371
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 May 2010, 4:13 am
• Regulation 1383/2003 does not fulfil the reasonability standard set forth in GATTArticle V:4. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 1:18 pm by Alfred Brophy
 There's talk of Brown, to be sure -- such as Dean Martha Minow's essay on the road from Brown and Owen Fiss' reflections on the trip he and Horwitz made to the Supreme Court to see Cooper v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 2:10 pm by Joel Bolstein
   In the Comment/Response Document, the Department also notes that Section 102.14(d)(2(v) provides a waiver for brownfield redevelopment projects from the new riparian buffer requirements. [read post]
15 Sep 2024, 1:36 pm by Tobias Lutzi
Morris-Sharma has argued that although the investor-state dispute settlement regime mainly concerns state-to-state obligations, a foreign (private) investor may bring a claim directly against the state. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 11:15 am by Steven M. Taber
– John O’Brien, Legal Newsline, July 27, 2010 A federal appeals court has overturned North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s victory in a public nuisance pollution lawsuit against Tennessee Valley Au [read post]
26 Feb 2023, 5:48 pm by Michael Lowe
Created by the Sentencing Reform Act found within the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the Supreme Court of the United States approved its authority in Mistretta v. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 7:00 pm
(Patent Prospector) US-Korea adopt patent prosecution highway (Law360) (Patent Docs) (Managing Intellectual Property)    Global Global - General Obama, patent reform, patent litigation in the USA and Europe – IP Think Tank podcast 26 January 2009 (IP Think Tank) Intangible values collapse – the old 70% to 80% claim is now officially dead and buried (IAM) (IP Asset Maximizer Blog) Managing value in a shrinking economy: the IP audit (IP Frontline) Downturn… [read post]
1 Dec 2016, 5:23 am by SHG
As the Supreme Court noted in Heckler v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 5:00 am by IP Dragon
Also, the Max Planck Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System of February 2011, stated that current European Court of Justice jurisprudence on the issue was "neither consistent nor satisfactory" (see paragraph 2.178 here). [read post]