Search for: "Sharp v. Sharp" Results 661 - 680 of 4,115
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Feb 2021, 1:19 am by Jani Ihalainen
 IntroductionOn 9 May 2019, the South African Constitutional Court, the highest appellate court in South Africa, heard its first ever patent litigation case in Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited v Merck Sharpe Dohme Corporation. [read post]
14 Feb 2021, 4:45 pm by INFORRM
IPSO has published a number of rulings and resolutions statements since our last Round Up: 28800-20 de Waal, Tabor and Runcie v The Daily Telegraph, 1 Accuracy (2019), 2 Privacy (2019), Resolved – IPSO mediation 02356-19, 00230-20 Sharp v dailyrecord.co.uk, 1 Accuracy (2018), 2 Privacy (2018), 3 Harassment (2018), 12 Discrimination (2018), Breach – sanction: action as offered by publication 00231-20 Sharp v mirror.co.uk, 1 Accuracy (2019), 3… [read post]
11 Feb 2021, 6:47 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The Court of Appeals (Livingston, Lynch and Cabranes) reverses, immunity attaches, and the case is over.The case is Williams v. [read post]
7 Feb 2021, 4:53 pm by INFORRM
IPSO has published a number of rulings and resolutions statements since our last Round Up: 28994-20 Carraway v The Sunday Telegraph, 1 Accuracy (2019), Resolved – IPSO mediation 28680-20 Richardson v The Sun, 1 Accuracy (2019), 12 Discrimination (2019), Resolved – IPSO mediation 28636-20 Enright v The Times, 1 Accuracy (2019), No breach – after investigation 28167-20 Korsanthiah v thetimes.co.uk, 2 Privacy (2019), 14 Confidential sources (2019),… [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 12:49 pm by Ilya Somin
The Supreme Court did not address nondelegation in Trump v. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 5:01 am by Tia Sewell
Pack then appointed new conservative leaders of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Network—decisions that drew sharp criticism from senior staffers at the organizations affected. [read post]
10 Jan 2021, 7:27 am by David Super
  As early as 1928, the Court had indicated that it did not regard this sharp line as sustainable. [read post]