Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 7601 - 7620
of 15,316
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2015, 11:23 am
193 Misc.2d 432 751 N.Y.S.2d 351 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 6:57 am
B. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 5:14 am
Finally, any bonus payment by a state or political subdivision because of a veteran’s service in a combat zone is tax free. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 4:05 pm
On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court of India ruled on the constitutionality of various provisions in India’s Information Technology Act 2000 in Shreya Singhal v Union of India W.P. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 12:27 pm
In today’s case (Karim v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 11:26 am
C. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 9:56 am
In Sherbert v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 3:07 pm
S. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 12:29 pm
App. 542, 411 S.E.2d 718 (1991), Tompkins State Bank v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 12:22 pm
(The use of a disclaimer in just that situation was approved in Cleaveland v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 12:15 pm
Alternatively, assume that both B and C make valid disclaimers after A’s death. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 12:14 pm
Example 1(c). [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 12:00 pm
As re-organized for enactment in the United States, all mandatory requirements have been grouped in this section. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 8:55 am
Estate of Hanna, et al. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 1:53 am
The tracking and collation of the claimants’ BGI was contrary to the defendant’s publicly stated position that such activity could not be conducted for Safari users unless they had expressly allowed this to happen. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 5:30 pm
But before jumping into the Top 10, a couple LXBN notes: Zosha writes up why the growing trend of legal representation for the unborn might be dangerous, and Young v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 11:11 am
* BREAKING: CJEU says that live broadcasts are not communication to the public within InfoSoc Directive but Member States can protect themHere's another insightful take by Eleonora on the surreal CJEU decision in Case C-279/13 C More Entertainment, a reference for a preliminary ruling from seemingly hyperlink-loving Member State, Sweden, which was supposed to address linking and copyright. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 5:34 am
") AC35418 - State v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 4:57 am
See State v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 2:46 am
The only success for Mattel at first instance was in respect of Zynga’s logo – the twisted “m” made the logo look like a “b”, said the trial judge, meaning that it read SCRABBLE, so it was an infringement of Mattel’s SCRABBLE CTMs. [read post]
