Search for: "F. v. R."
Results 8441 - 8460
of 20,293
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 May 2014, 2:37 pm
Seaton v. [read post]
16 May 2014, 10:00 am
May 10, 2012), affirmed, 741 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2013). [read post]
16 May 2014, 4:58 am
(opinion here), the Superior Court addressed exactly this issue:[F]or a restrictive covenant to be enforceable, the employee must receive actual valuable consideration in exchange for signing an employment agreement containing one. [read post]
15 May 2014, 9:36 am
Co., 629 F.3d 639, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2010); McClain v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 6:30 am
This Reiferdecision is to be distinguished from the Third Circuit's prior decision in the case of State Auto Insurance v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 5:23 am
Ameritech, 129 F.3d 857, 867 (6th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Tyndall v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 1:53 am
In People v. [read post]
14 May 2014, 9:40 am
Esta ley no prohíbe el uso de cualquier dispositivo GPS, o sistema que está integrado por vía electrónica o físicamente en un vehículo privado o un dispositivo de comunicación que se adjunta a un autobús escolar, autobús público o vehículo de transporte masivo. [read post]
14 May 2014, 5:50 am
., v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 10:20 pm
In Bond v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 7:06 pm
" Bain v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 3:19 pm
Holman v. [read post]
[Eugene Volokh] New York’s ‘aggravated harassment’ statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague
13 May 2014, 1:08 pm
” Three federal judges have already found this statute unconstitutional (see Vives v the City of New York, 305 F Supp 2d 289, 299 [SD NY 2003, Scheindlin, J.], revd on other grounds 405 F3d 115 [2d Cir 2004] ["where speech is regulated or proscribed based on its content, the scope of the effected speech must be clearly defined"]; see also Vives 405 F3d 115, 123-124 [2d Cir 2004, Cardamone, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part] [Penal Law § 240.30(1)… [read post]
12 May 2014, 4:37 pm
Says the sadface of James Franco, posing in a shirt patterned with sadfaces of James Franco. [read post]
12 May 2014, 4:12 am
Bethlehem Steel Corp., 784 F. [read post]
10 May 2014, 10:01 am
Howard Johnson Co., 877 F.2d 126, 129 (1st Cir. 1989). [read post]
10 May 2014, 9:16 am
The leading case on the relationship between federal copyright and state community property law, Rodrigue v Rodrique, 218 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2000), holds that an author-spouse maintains exclusive control over his works, but nevertheless the non-author-spouse is entitled to some share of the net economic benefits. [read post]
9 May 2014, 2:27 pm
V. [read post]
9 May 2014, 12:57 pm
Clement & R. [read post]
