Search for: "DOES 1-8" Results 8261 - 8280 of 32,312
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jan 2020, 7:27 am
The Judge noted that the License offered three relevant permissions:1) "reproduce and use the Materials for NonCommercial purposes,"2) "expressly permits the schools to provide those Materials to the public 'by any means or process,' and"3) "does not prohibit the schools from outsourcing the copying to third party vendors. [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 5:47 pm by Eugene Volokh
On January 8, 2020, the plaintiffs were each noticed that such a hearing would be conducted on January 17, 2020, with or without their presence. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 11:46 am by Stephen Wm. Smith
Of course, the Supreme Court does not sit to correct every misguided ruling by a lower court. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 11:26 am by Jonathan Holbrook
Davis, 353 N.C. 1 (2000) (explaining that even when the rules of evidence don’t apply, “they may be used as a guideline to reliability and relevance,” and holding that “hearsay statements introduced therein must be relevant and bear indicia of reliability” and the “judge still must determine the admissibility of evidence subject to general rules excluding evidence that is repetitive or unreliable”); State v. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 10:49 am by admin
SB 83 (Increase in the Length of Paid Family Leave) Effective July 1, 2020, the duration of wage replacement benefits associated with paid family leave will increase from six (6) weeks to eight (8) weeks. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 10:36 am by Jon Sands
Mayea-Pulido, No. 18-50223 (1-3-20)(Friedland w/M. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 9:07 am by John Elwood
Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th and 11th Circuits hold; does it instead create a jury question, as the U.S. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 7:19 am by MBettman
” Justice DeWine to the public defender On January 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in State of Ohio v. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 5:39 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
"The jury found that claims 8 and 19of the ’320 patent were invalid for obviousness, and the CAFC,by a 2-1 vote, affirmed. [read post]