Search for: "Peter v. Peter" Results 7561 - 7580 of 8,635
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jul 2009, 4:21 pm
A panel of special masters last month concluded that McBrien had acted improperly during the Carlsson v. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 8:48 am
(Excess Copyright) (Michael Geist) Hill Times features op-ed by Michael Geist concerning copyright lobby recycling (Michael Geist) Owner of Glo Salon and Spa sues former employees now working at competitor for $6.4 million in damages over alleged misappropriation of trade secrets in the form of client lists and client colour cards (IP Osgoode) Federal court issues practice direction aimed at streamlining complex litigation (International Law Office)   China Get involved in Chinese IP policy… [read post]
4 Jul 2009, 5:50 pm by Jason Krebs
RETAIL CONSIGNEES FOR FSIS RECALL 034-2009 (EXPANDED) FSIS has reason to believe that the following retail location(s) received assorted beef products that have been recalled by JBS Swift Beef Company. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 7:08 am
Two of the esteemed "tax nerds" in our blogroll, Peter Pappas (Tax Lawyer's Blog) and Robert D. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 7:09 am
Lawyer-Blogger Peter Pappas yesterday listed "5 Slam Dunk IRS Audit Red Flags" increasing risk of an IRS exam. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 1:00 am
: L’Oréal v Bellure (IPKat) Is the ruling in L’Oréal v Bellure against the law? [read post]
27 Jun 2009, 8:47 am
11: Krister Bykvist: Preference Formation and Intergenerational Justice 12: Gustaf Arrhenius: Egalitarianism and Population Change 13: Clark Wolf: Intergenerational Justice, Human Needs, and Climate Policy 14: Víctor M. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 1:21 pm
Contrary to what Peter Lippe believes (see previous Novalawcity blog post), law faculty are not always focused on theoretical topics that are irrelevant to the practice of law. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 2:32 am
Regina v Twomey (John); Regina v Blake (Peter); Regina v Cameron (Glen); Regina v Hibberd (Barry) Court of Appeal “A defendant's right to a fair trial was not prejudiced by holding a criminal trial without a jury, where the danger of jury tampering was very significant and was not sufficiently addressed by proposed protective measures. [read post]