Search for: "See v. See" Results 6721 - 6740 of 121,990
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Apr 2023, 4:52 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Co. v Thirsty Moose, Inc., 19 AD3d 721, 722 [3d Dept 2005]; see Saint James’ Episcopal Church v F.O.C.U.S. [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 1:50 am by CMS
As a matter of English law, if a state, as principal, represents that a person had authority to act on its behalf, it will be bound by the acts of that person with respect to anyone dealing with him as an agent on the faith of that representation (Attorney General of Ceylon v Silva (AD) [1953] A.C. 461). [read post]
13 Apr 2023, 5:43 am by Dennis Crouch
On a positive note, the EU Proposal clarifies that “royalty-free licensing policies do not raise concerns” (recital 10) – a welcome acknowledgement in view of recent complaints about royalty-free SEP licensing requirements (see, e.g., here). [read post]
13 Apr 2023, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
Thomas gave us the answer in his opening paragraph in his brutal dissent in Grutter v. [read post]
12 Apr 2023, 7:35 am by Cyberleagle
” Take care with that social media duty of care October 2018: “[Rhodes v OPO] aptly illustrates the caution that has to be exercised in applying physical world concepts of harm, injury and safety to communication and speech, even before considering the further step of imposing a duty of care on a platform to take steps to reduce the risk of their occurrence as between third parties, or the yet further step of appointing a regulator to superintend the platform’s… [read post]