Search for: "State v. So " Results 8561 - 8580 of 116,412
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jan 2023, 12:00 pm by Joe Mullin
As with so many other flourishing areas of software, patents don’t push forward the state of the art—they drag it down. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 11:26 am by INFORRM
’ The article suggests that, post-Brexit, the UK is less able to forge international agreements relating to the transfer of personal data, as countries are more reluctant to negotiate with the UK, if doing so would prejudice their negotiations with the EU. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 7:57 am by Roger Parloff
I described then the legal landscape in which their motions to transfer venue are playing out, which is largely set by the District of Columbia Circuit’s binding, en banc 1976 ruling in United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 6:28 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
But in this case the Second Circuit reverses because the judge did not ask questions that would determine if potential jurors held any preconcieved notions about criminal gangs.The case is United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 5:01 am by Matthew Levitt
These include plots in EU member states like Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 4:52 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
The prevailing state of the law remains unsettled, with no explicit appeals court guidance to be found. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 1:45 am by Matrix Law
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 03/02/23) The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter, heard 14th June 2022 R (on the application of VIP… [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 1:32 am by Frank Cranmer
Background In Fedotova and Others v Russia [2023] ECHR 55, the six applicants formed three same-sex couples: two female and one male. [read post]