Search for: "Thomas v. Held"
Results 6961 - 6980
of 7,230
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
The IP Court of Venice held that a work created by a lawyer for their client in the provision of legal services was protected by copyright law. [read post]
7 May 2018, 10:25 pm
Ihrig, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 8:57 pm
This is a claim articulated most fully (so far) by Justice Scalia in his brief concurrence in Ricci v. [read post]
10 Feb 2023, 4:44 am
There are any number of law professors and even scientists who have held out incorrect definitions and interpretations of confidence intervals. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 5:36 pm
Bank v. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 4:20 am
The music firms argued that by failing to act after being alerted to piracy on its networks, Cox should lose its safe harbour protections and be held liable for the copyright infringement of its customers. [read post]
3 Dec 2016, 8:17 am
Mongeon Bay Properties LLC v. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 8:15 am
Sys. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2024, 8:46 am
In it, the Court held that its 1984 Chevron decision was overruled. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 12:06 am
”[7] Then, Courts analyzed whether the professionals enjoyed an exemption from antitrust law and the Supreme Court explicitly held that professionals are subject to antitrust law in Goldfarb v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered under the provisions hereof when, by lapse of time, he is exempt from prosecution or punishment for the crime or offence for which the surrender is asked, according to the laws of the country from which the extradition is demanded, or when his extradition is asked for the same crime or offence for which he has been tried, convicted or acquitted in that country, or so long as he is under prosecution for the same. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 3:00 am
Beckerman, 126 AD2d 591 (2d Dept 1987), and Muller v. [read post]
12 Jul 2023, 8:00 am
However, the Supreme Court has long held that the Equal Protection Clause's nondiscrimination requirements apply to the federal government, as well – a principle established in the Court's famous 1954 ruling in Bolling v. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 6:14 am
The description of the opinions in the merger agreement appears to indicate that they didn't: "(v) Opinion of Financial Advisors. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 5:42 am
She noted that although the Assistance Exception can operate to preserve coverage for claims otherwise precluded by the Insured v. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 8:01 pm
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. [read post]
13 Aug 2019, 2:48 pm
Laird and Marbury v. [read post]
10 Nov 2007, 10:07 pm
Ralph Baze and Thomas C. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 1:41 am
Iyer & Thomas, Advocates. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 4:32 pm
Jaroslawicz v. [read post]
