Search for: "Key v State" Results 6861 - 6880 of 22,474
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2019, 4:51 pm by INFORRM
This was also dismissed with the Court holding that the key date was when the claim form was actually received by the Trust, not the date it was deemed to be received under the CPR. [read post]
17 Jun 2019, 3:43 pm by Emily Hammond
Finally, Gorsuch’s opinion staked out some key points about the propriety of inquiring into state legislative purposes. [read post]
16 Jun 2019, 1:21 pm by Giles Peaker
This is a key point that we’ll come back to it. [read post]
16 Jun 2019, 11:07 am
 Copyright Katfriend Thomas Key writes about popular Minecraft YouTuber, Mumbo Jumbo, receiving a torrent of email notifications which alerted the YouTuber that his videos were facing copyright claims. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 10:10 am by Scott R. Anderson
In its 1983 decision in the matter of INS v. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 1:06 pm
| Fordham 27 (Report 3): DMCA - 20 years later | Fordham 27 (Report 2): IP - Past, Present & Future | Fordham 27 (Report 1): Key Current IP Issues: Reflections & Analysis | Event Report: IPAN World IP Day Celebrations | German Federal Court of Justice refers new case on communication to the public | Non-traditional trademarks and other amendments to the Mexican IP Law (Second Part) | Follow the IPKat page on LinkedIn! [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 12:34 pm by Tom Zagorsky
Key to satisfying this obligation is exercising “reasonable diligence, care and skill” when making a recommendation to a retail customer. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 6:09 am by Florian Mueller
The key antitrust issue here is this: Illinois Brick doesn't give indirect purchasers (here, the consumers bought phones, but the makers of those devices paid patent royalties to Qualcomm) standing to seek damages under federal antitrust laws; but many states have, as some say, "repealed" (or one might also say "worked around") Illinois Brick by allowing such claims under state competition laws. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 5:24 am by Nancy E. Halpern, D.V.M.
If applicable VCPR requirements as defined by such State do not include the key elements of a valid VCPR as defined in § 530.3(i) of this chapter, the veterinarian must issue the VFD in the context of a valid VCPR as defined in § 530.3(i) of this chapter. 21 CFR § 558.6(b)(1). [read post]