Search for: "Fox et al. v. United States" Results 61 - 80 of 134
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Aug 2012, 6:28 am by Sheldon Toplitt
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)Pity the docket and courtroom clerks at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, who are trying not to confuse separate Barry Diller and BarryDriller lawsuits.A little more than a week after a copyright and trademark infringement suit, Fox Television Services, Inc. et al. v. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 6:28 am by Sheldon Toplitt
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)Pity the docket and courtroom clerks at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, who are trying not to confuse separate Barry Diller and BarryDriller lawsuits.A little more than a week after a copyright and trademark infringement suit, Fox Television Services, Inc. et al. v. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 6:33 am by Sheldon Toplitt
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)An offensive against television streaming services was launched last week in the United States District Court for the Central District of California via a four-count, 17-page complaint, Fox Television Services, Inc. et al. v. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 6:33 am by Sheldon Toplitt
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)An offensive against television streaming services was launched last week in the United States District Court for the Central District of California via a four-count, 17-page complaint, Fox Television Services, Inc. et al. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 6:09 am by 1 Crown Office Row
That feeling of dismay is understandable, particularly if the case has been rejected by the Single Judge and thus the decision is unreasoned (for further academic criticism of the practice see, for instance, H, Keller et al, Debating the Future of the European Court of Human Rights after the Interlaken Conference: Two Innovative Proposals (2010) 21:4 EJIL 1025–1048. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 6:02 am by Sheldon Toplitt
Image via WikipediaThe United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit yesterday upheld its 2008 ruling that the Federal Communications Commission acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it fined CBS Corp. $550,000 for airing the 2004 Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime wardrobe malfunction that caused Justin Timberlake to bare Janet Jackson's breast for an entire nine-sixteenths of a second (see "TUOL" post 9/17/09).As reported by the Associated Press, the… [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 3:18 am by New Books Script
cents sous la direction de Charles Leben ; Charles Leben… [et al.]. [read post]