Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 6941 - 6960
of 15,316
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jan 2016, 4:04 pm
(b) As a result, CSP has rightly dismissed him for gross misconduct. [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 9:24 am
In Cespedes v. [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 7:15 am
The TRIPs Agreement protects trade secrets so long as such information (a) is secret in the sense that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question; (b) has commercial value because it is secret; and (c) has been subject to reasonable steps under the circumstances, by the person lawfully in control of the… [read post]
29 Dec 2015, 12:35 pm
State policy required the University to “[v]erify” Oyama’s “ability to function effectively in Department classrooms” before approving his student teaching application. [read post]
29 Dec 2015, 8:07 am
” Ashcroft v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 12:36 pm
Sapp v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 9:37 am
EFFECT: This law is a legislative overturning of a California Court of Appeal decision (Rope v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 9:37 am
EFFECT: This law is a legislative overturning of a California Court of Appeal decision (Rope v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 6:03 am
EFFECT: This law is a legislative overturning of a California Court of Appeal decision (Rope v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
And finally Eleonora updated on the CJEU's decision in Case C-279/13 C More Entertainment where the CJEU said that live broadcasts are not communication to the public within InfoSoc Directive, but Member States can protect them: "[The Information Society] [D]irective provides that broadcasting organizations may prohibit the provision to the public fixations of their broadcasts [read post]
27 Dec 2015, 6:37 am
§§ 1681b(b)(3), 1681g(c). [read post]
26 Dec 2015, 8:05 am
§§ 1051(b), 1058, 1059, 1062(b), 1063, 1064, and 1126(d), or 35 U.S.C. [read post]
24 Dec 2015, 9:57 am
The law also supersedes any countervailing state law under an express preemption section, § 108(k). [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 11:19 am
(See 2511(c)). [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 5:29 am
More recently, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in Zakharov v Russia stated that “the interception authorisation, … must clearly identify a specific person …or single set of premises”. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 12:00 am
” United States v. 95 Barrels of Alleged Cider, 265 U.S. 438 (1924). [read post]
22 Dec 2015, 2:50 pm
B. [read post]
22 Dec 2015, 10:36 am
Harris v. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 3:24 pm
I have been sitting on Xerox Corp. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 2:18 pm
The FTT in that case had found that a) the freeholder had long since waived any such breach, b) had demonstrated no intention of actually forfeiting, even if such were possible & c) the proceedings were an abuse of process. [read post]
