Search for: "State v. Mannering" Results 841 - 860 of 19,025
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 May 2013, 2:09 pm
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered its long-awaited judgment in the case of Bowman v Monsanto Co. et Al., unanimously ruling that 'patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission'. [read post]
23 May 2011, 1:00 pm by McNabb Associates, P.C.
ARTICLE V The contracting Parties shall not be bound to delivery up their own citizens or subjects under the stipulations of this treaty. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 11:42 am by bklemm@foley.com
They also argued that the landmark 2020 Supreme Court decision that the EEOC relied upon, Bostock v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 12:50 am by Matt Pavich
The district court was instructed on remand to determine whether the retailer consented to the publication (Sleepy’s LLC v. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 7:15 am by ASAD KHAN
Sales LJ was unconvinced that the criteria set out in Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1 – intended to reflect the balance of justice in relation to applications to admit fresh evidence – had not been satisfied and KV was unable to demonstrate that evidence such as Dr Cohen’s report could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use earlier. [read post]