Search for: "Bounds v. State" Results 7581 - 7600 of 9,710
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jan 2011, 7:45 am
 If there's a contractual licence, remember that a licensee's acts are bounded by the limits of what is licensed, not by the scope of the IP right itself. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 5:00 am by Don Cruse
The Court also filled out its March 3 argument calendar by re-setting some previously granted cases: Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 4:48 pm by NL
London Borough of Hackney v Findlay [2011] EWCA Civ 8 This was the Court of Appeal hearing of an appeal on the issues raised in Forcelux v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854 [Our report here], specifically the Court’s ability to set aside a possession order under CPR 3.1(2)(m) as opposed to the more restrictive provisions in CPR 39.3. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 4:48 pm by NL
London Borough of Hackney v Findlay [2011] EWCA Civ 8 This was the Court of Appeal hearing of an appeal on the issues raised in Forcelux v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854 [Our report here], specifically the Court’s ability to set aside a possession order under CPR 3.1(2)(m) as opposed to the more restrictive provisions in CPR 39.3. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 4:10 am
Denial of an Article 75 petition to vacate an arbitration award requires that the court confirm the awardMatter of Perilli v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 2011 NY Slip Op 00229, Appellate Division, Second DepartmentJohn Perilli appealed an order of the Supreme Court that denied his Article 75 petition challenging an arbitration award. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 1:36 am by Matthew Flinn
The authority relied on by the Government included a Court of Appeal decision (R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2002] EWCA Civ 1868 – “the PH case”) and three High Court decisions (R (G) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2004] EWHC 2193 (Admin), R v Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2004] EWHC 2194 (Admin) and IT v Secretary of… [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 9:41 am by Simon Lester
 A proper aggregation of the intermediate results of model-specific comparisons must reflect the result of all such comparisons. 7.30 In relation to the reliance by Korea on the Appellate Body's report in  US – Softwood Lumber V, both the United States and Korea agree that  the Panel is not bound by the reasoning in prior Appellate Body reports. [read post]