Search for: "State v. Holderness"
Results 6861 - 6880
of 8,253
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2010, 12:14 pm
the Supreme Court in Muehler v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 11:47 am
Cefetra BV, Cefetra Feed Service BV, Cefetra Futures BV and State of Argentina and Monsanto Technology LLC v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 7:22 am
(Review of Ian Bremmer, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations? [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 5:34 am
Sometime before commencement of the Supreme Court’s 2009 term, Mike Sacks, a third-year law student at Georgetown University, had an idea. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 8:02 pm
It is not often that the GWOT affects the world of T&E law, but the Supreme Court’s June 21 6-3 opinion in Holder v. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 9:18 am
(b) Is the answer to Question 5(a) affected by (i) whether the transient copies have any inherent value or (ii) whether the transient copies comprise a small part of a collection of works and/or other subject matter which otherwise may be used without infringement of copyright or (iii) whether the exclusive licensee of the rights holder in another Member State has already received remuneration for use of the work in that Member State? [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 7:53 am
” In The Hill, David Cole, who represented the Humanitarian Law Project in Holder v. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 4:47 am
Puleo v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 8:47 pm
Puleo v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 7:39 am
The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times expresses disappointment with the Court’s “inconsistent” rulings in First Amendment cases, arguing that in Holder v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 6:41 am
Last week, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) for the Ninth Circuit decided Mwangi v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 5:29 am
Article 9 of the Directive precludes the holder of a patent issued prior to the adoption of that directive from relying on the absolute protection for the patented product accorded to it under the national legislation then applicable. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 4:49 am
Toepfer International GmbH and, as intervener in support of the defendant, the Argentine State itself. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 2:08 am
The Respondent’s base of operations is the United States. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 3:29 pm
United States and Black v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 1:10 pm
The coconspirators abused their position as government credit card holders by placing fraudulent orders with suppliers and all coconspirators personally benefited from the scheme by receiving kickbacks in cash and merchandise. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 1:10 pm
The coconspirators abused their position as government credit card holders by placing fraudulent orders with suppliers and all coconspirators personally benefited from the scheme by receiving kickbacks in cash and merchandise. [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 11:09 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Jul 2010, 1:21 am
In Purcell v Ireland, the Commission (in an admissibility decision) upheld a reporting ban on Sinn Fein accepting – as with the majority in Holder - apparently somewhat speculative justifications for the ban. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 10:07 am
”Viacom announced that it will appeal the ruling.Viacom International, Inc., v. [read post]
