Search for: "State v. Levell " Results 8501 - 8520 of 29,482
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jun 2015, 8:37 am
As IPKat readers will know, there are indeed fairly diverging approaches at national levels as regards both the language of relevant exceptions and the "fair compensation" systems, with currently 21 out of 28 Member States having levies in place.Coming to the case of the UK, in this Member State the Secretary of State decided to introduce a narrow exception only for those purchasers of content who wish to copy for their own private use. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 3:18 pm
  The Court rejected the state’s argument that discovery of his blood alcohol level would have been inevitably discovered through a urine sample or breath test. [read post]
3 Mar 2019, 3:01 pm by Giles Peaker
Non-British applicants faced greater levels of refusal and those whose right to rent could not be straightforwardly demonstrated most of all. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 1:39 am by Lucy Hayes, Olswang LLP
This question was concerned with the level of restraint that an appellate court should apply in reviewing the decision of a first instance judge involving the exercise of judgment on findings of fact. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 2:39 pm by Lyle Denniston
The appeals courts handling the Mississippi and Florida cases are among the last at that level to take up the same-sex marriage issue in the eighteen months since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2021, 9:05 pm by Amal Bass
Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 12:41 pm by Michael McCann
The Panel stated that the obligation to pay compensation can never be seen as an impairment of the freedom of movement. [read post]
27 Sep 2024, 4:20 am by Paul Robinson and Jeffrey Seaman
Compare such honesty with the shell game played currently in many states where the sentence publicly imposed means little or nothing. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 7:04 pm by Michael Zimmer
  The precedent established back in United States v. [read post]