Search for: "State v. J. P." Results 641 - 660 of 4,856
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jul 2021, 4:12 am by Michael Douglas
There were three consequences of this removal: first, Fortnite could not be downloaded to an Apple device; secondly, previously installed iOS versions of Fortnite could not be updated; and, thirdly, Apple device users could not play against players who had the latest version of Fortnite.[22] 4         The Proceedings On the same day as Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, Epic commenced antitrust proceedings in the United States District Court… [read post]
25 Jul 2021, 4:50 pm by INFORRM
P., Upadhyaya, S., Wang, X., & Yoo, C. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
Junejo v New Vision TV Limited, heard 24 and  25 March 2021 (Murray J) Miller v College of Policing and another, heard 9 and 10 March 2021 (Sharp P,  Haddon-Cave and Simler LJJ) Wright [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 10:58 am by Simon Lester
In the United States (US), as for most developed countries,[6] trade policy and IP standards have consistently been linked, a pattern which can (at least partially) be traced back to extensive lobbying by senior management at US-based technology and pharmaceutical firms.[7] For example, since at least the 1980s, Pfizer Inc. has been involved in mobilizing other US firms and stakeholders to lobby US policymakers on the issue of international IP protection. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 5:05 am by Eugene Volokh
In PruneYard, for instance, the Court stressed that "no specific message is dictated by the State to be displayed on appellants' property. [read post]
11 Jul 2021, 4:55 pm by INFORRM
, heard 15 and 16 June 2021 (Julian Knowles J) Riley v Murray, heard 10 to 12 M [read post]
11 Jul 2021, 9:38 am by Eugene Volokh
Pruneyard Shopping Center, 592 P.2d 341, 346 (Cal. 1979) (quoting and describing Schwartz-Torrance Investment Corp. v. [read post]