Search for: "Littles v. Superintendent"
Results 61 - 80
of 175
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2017, 4:50 pm
2005: SEC v. [read post]
7 Sep 2017, 10:30 am
Little Tucker Act Claim – Dismissed The “Little Tucker” Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. [read post]
30 Aug 2017, 9:01 pm
The US Supreme Court has spoken directly on this point in Young v. [read post]
17 Apr 2017, 2:09 pm
” Parket v. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 11:06 am
The superintendent doesn’t look like a website operator, so he’s eligible for Section 230 protection only as an ICS “user” and the user prong of Section 230 has always been a little murky. [read post]
18 Dec 2016, 3:56 am
” Pickering v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 8:00 am
Dionisio v. [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 4:55 pm
Even not prompted by the latest headlines, every law firm executive committee realizes that its law firm can (and probably will) fall victim to a cyber-attack, and even worse, that the executive committee will need to clean up the mess and superintend the fallout. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 4:50 pm
” [1] Criminal Appeal Nos. 1077-1081 OF 2013 with Central Bureau of Investigation through Superintendent of Police, BS & FC & Anr. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 9:01 pm
In Smith v. [read post]
13 Jan 2016, 5:05 pm
John Reed Stark David Fontaine In this day and age, the members of the boards of directors of most companies understand that cybersecurity issues are both important and should be a board-level priority. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 12:52 pm
In today’s case (Thompson v. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 8:14 am
In Han Lee v. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 6:54 am
Matheny v. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 6:59 am
UCI’s superintendent tried to persuade him to reinstate the plaintiff but the other superintendent refused. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 4:09 am
., LLC v. [read post]
1 Feb 2015, 9:57 am
See Barreto v. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 4:04 pm
The decision was controversial, with Roy Greenslade arguing that the prosecutions had little merit. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 1:35 pm
Thus, as Jacob LJ explained in Actavis v Merck at [75], such a claim "is not aimed at and does not touch the doctor - it is directed at the manufacturer. [read post]
