Search for: "CALIFORNIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT V US"
Results 761 - 780
of 1,248
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2015, 10:17 pm
California made a bad mistake in not giving fuller force to forfeiture doctrine; Michigan v. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 9:17 am
The 65 DNL level significance developed out of the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise’s June, 1980 Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control (http://bit.ly/1FXIAIb ). [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 7:52 am
Wyndham v. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 4:30 am
http://t.co/KaAqSFU6y3 -> Paparazzi’s Photographs Protectable by US Copyright http://t.co/XnDEzCkOgc -> Are Privacy Super-Injunctions now Obsolete? [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 11:20 am
In the California case Barbee v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 8:47 am
Photo credit: “the words Top 10 in a burst of colorful stars” // ShutterStock It’s time for my annual recap of the top Internet Law developments of the year. #10: Copyright Fair Use Tilts To Defense. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 1:12 pm
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDERV. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 10:59 am
Given the vast diversity of circumstances, these Guidelines recognize the diversity of planning, land use planning and development dynamics that exists in California. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 4:30 am
Sequenom decision by the Northern District of California, one of the first trial cases applying Myriad. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 10:05 am
I am sure there will come a time when we will all be very glad of having organized these matters and of your having control over the further use of your works. [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 3:57 pm
Plaintiff developed a marketing plan pursuant to which Disney would license to a non-party the right to use the X-wing name and appearance, the non-party would develop the vehicle in the appearance of an X-wing (the “Flying Car”), and Plaintiff would raise the funds for development of the Flying Car. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 10:52 am
Ambler Realty Co.; and (2) whether a regulatory restriction on the right to use one's property “must substantially advance a legitimate state interest” to satisfy the substantive requirement of due process, per Lingle, Nectow, and Euclid. [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 2:19 am
More from Europe: In Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box the CJEU said that circumventing a protection system may not be unlawful. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 6:00 am
Sweeney’s strategy to Elizabeth Shriberg, a psycholinguist at SRI International in California. [read post]
14 Dec 2014, 9:52 am
The Supreme Court’s decision this week in R. v. [read post]
24 Nov 2014, 5:32 am
Decker v. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 5:26 pm
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, now codified as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. [read post]
16 Nov 2014, 8:00 am
Moore v. [read post]
15 Nov 2014, 3:05 pm
McGill v. [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 9:23 pm
California, 554 U.S. 353, 358–61 (2008) (admissibility of hearsay); District of Columbia v. [read post]
