Search for: "State v. Field" Results 8361 - 8380 of 11,497
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Feb 2022, 6:12 am by Matthias Weller
“Thus, only if a measure adopted in this field is manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objectives which the competent institutions are seeking to pursue can the lawfulness of such a measure be affected”. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 6:54 am by Eric Goldman
The advertisement states, “Compare Our Dumpster Smasher–No Franchise Fees, Higher ROI. [read post]
22 May 2020, 8:51 am by Jeffery Robinson
 Is it through litigation, legislation, state-based work, or is it all three and more? [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 12:48 pm
However, that court has also confirmed that, while Article 10(2) ECHR leaves little room for restrictions on freedom of expression in political matters, Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of discretion when they regulate freedom of expression in the commercial field (see, eg, Ashby Donald, para 39).In any event, the potential conflict between freedom of expression - whether commercial or artistic - and image rights has also emerged elsewhere, including in the US. [read post]
12 Jan 2025, 7:48 am
• Sovereignty, State Power, and Legal IdentityExplores how state power and legal identity are shaped by globalization, migration,and digital connectivity. [read post]
21 Sep 2014, 3:37 pm
 Katfriends Morag MacDonald (Bird & Bird, left), Richard Vary (Nokia), Sally Field (Bristows) and the eponymous Mehmet Gün are there too, not to mention EPLAW Honorary President Pierre Véron, Margot Fröhlinger (all the way from Eponia), knowledgeable Kevin Mooney (Simmons & Simmons), the dashing Justin Turner QC and, well, you can see for yourself who else is there ... [read post]
6 Dec 2015, 6:25 am by Gritsforbreakfast
Here are a few more of her greatest hits for those not hip to her work:Still Convicting the InnocentProsecutorial Exceptionalism: Remedial Skepticism, and the Legacy of Connick v. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 8:13 am by William Morriss
”11 It also stated explicitly that “whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact” and that “[a]ny fact, such as this one, that is pertinent to the invalidity conclusion must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. [read post]