Search for: "The Florida Bar v. Quick" Results 61 - 80 of 136
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am by Ben
The Turtles ongoing tri-state litigation against SiriusXM over the satellite radio broadcaster's refusal to pay to broadcast pre-1972 sound recordings reached the the Florida Supreme Court, who looked again at Judge Darrin Gayle's decision which found in favour of SiriusXM and agreed that "There is no specific Florida legislation covering sound recording property rights, nor is there a bevy of case law interpreting common law copyright related to the arts"… [read post]
19 May 2017, 9:33 am by Victoria Kwan
Who doesn’t want to take a quick break in the middle of work and go to Italy? [read post]
16 May 2017, 6:28 pm by Bernie Burk
” Let’s take a quick look at some examples of continuing use of past titles to get a sense of what’s been done. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 6:07 pm by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.
ISSUE: Whether section 440.34 Florida Statutes, recently modified by the Florida Supreme Court in Castellanos v. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 5:51 am by Eugene Volokh
Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 556 (1985), there is no First Amendment right to use content generated and paid for entirely by another for a purpose contrary to the intent of the content’s creation, and barred by state law. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 10:26 am by Chris McLaughlin
The North Carolina state bar has not issued any opinions on this issue, but the guidance from other state bars are fairly consistent. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 10:26 am by Chris McLaughlin
The North Carolina state bar has not issued any opinions on this issue, but the guidance from other state bars are fairly consistent. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 11:12 am by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
Harris decision.From the Bar’s perspective, civil unions are a failed experiment.They have shown to perpetuate unacceptable second-class legalstatus. [read post]
21 May 2015, 10:19 am by John Elwood
Florida, 14-7884, asking whether the Florida Supreme Court violated clearly established law by allowing a trial court that had found reasonable doubt regarding the defendant’s competency to then allow the defendant to represent himself at his own competency hearing. [read post]