Search for: "State v. C. S." Results 7541 - 7560 of 37,717
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Dec 2019, 1:19 pm by David Kris
See, e.g., Report at 13 n.22; C-SPAN at 2:10:50. [read post]
22 Dec 2019, 10:26 am
However, it also emphasised that, even though the legalisation of cannabis for therapeutic and recreational purposes is under discussion across the EU, the consumption and use of cannabis containing THC above a stated threshold remains illegal in most EU Member States. [read post]
22 Dec 2019, 9:33 am by Florian Mueller
But the particular way in which Qualcomm's reply brief makes that point is misleading:"See United States v. [read post]
On December 19, 2019, Advocate General (“AG”) Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe handed down his Opinion in Case C-311/18, Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems (“Schrems II”). [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 8:22 am by Rob Robinson
Read the complete opinion at Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard ØE Delivered on 19 December 2019 (Case C-311/18) News Commentary from the Data Protection Commission (DPC) Ireland DPC Statement on AG Opinion on Case #C-311/18 CJEU The DPC welcomes the publication of the AG’s opinion on case #C-311/18 CJEU. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 11:59 pm by Roel van Woudenberg
Some Boards indicate that there is such a prohibition but that legitimate interest arises from e.g. broad vs narrow or from a longer term in case of internal priority (and one could also consider new states acceding to the EPC or becoming a new validation state in the priority period). [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
In the same way that Collins is undermined by the subequent decisions in Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2016] QB 1003, [2015] EWCA Civ 311 (27 March 2015) and Case C–362/14 Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (ECLI:EU:C:2015:650; CJEU, 6 October 2015), so Murphy is undermined by the subsequent decisions in Lloyd v Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599 (02 October 2019) and Case… [read post]