Search for: "Short v. First Choice Serv." Results 741 - 760 of 1,009
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2013, 12:07 pm by Florian Mueller
The copyright monopoly is longer, but much more limited than the short, 'powerful' patent monopoly. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 12:00 pm by Guest Blogger
 Or, as the joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 9:00 am by Guest Blogger
Ordered Liberties’ first and most plausible line-drawing principle fails in these harder cases. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 3:10 pm
 Attendance, on a first-come-first-served basis, is free of charge and, comfortingly for those who make it their habit to attend breakfast briefings, will include breakfast. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 9:01 pm by David S. Kemp
” In so doing, Ginsburg argued, the Court cut short a “dialogue” with state legislators that, if permitted to run its natural course, “might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy. [read post]
15 Jan 2013, 3:54 pm by Jennifer Granick
  Neither was a maximum of 50 years, which was what the government arrived at after its perplexing choice to get a superceding indictment. [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 11:11 pm by Sam Murrant
Adam Wagner predicts the “romance” between the paper and the HRA will be short-lived. [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 7:52 pm by Larry Catá Backer
  This post includes the Conference Concept Note,  Conference Objectives, Program, and a short Biography and abstract of the presentations of the conference participants.Conference Concept Note:Conference In the last decade or so, China and India have emerged on the global stage as two emerging (market) economies. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 11:48 pm by Peter Tillers
First, legal and non-legal scholars in America and elsewhere have been using formal theories of probability and inference to study uncertainty in factfinding. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 9:58 am by Sheppard Mullin
On October 15, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Jovani Fashion, Ltd. v. [read post]