Search for: "BEENE v. BEENE"
Results 8601 - 8620
of 191,855
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2023, 11:28 am
Higher education admissions preferences were upheld under the “diverse student body” rationale in the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 10:00 am
Prior to this case, the focus has been on the transformative nature of the work itself. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 9:00 am
It is, as a group of amici explained during Apple v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 8:27 am
But there still are some cases pending, and as far as I can see, there is no OPPO v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 8:10 am
State v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 8:03 am
So far, that has not been successful.The next issue is that EAPA is being interpreted as a strict liability statute. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 8:00 am
Doe v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 7:53 am
It’s a chance to get the case tossed before it’s even been heard on its merits. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 7:49 am
—Daniel Akaka 1Aquilina v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 7:29 am
Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 6:28 am
Bantam Books v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 6:11 am
Seed Co. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 5:49 am
Doe precedents or Doe v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 5:13 am
That's the question in Doe v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 4:55 am
The next day, the Supreme Court concluded in 303 Creative LLC v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 4:30 am
Co. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 4:00 am
” Blum v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 3:47 am
Kemp had been a director and employee of Big Catch. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 2:55 am
Although the Court of Appeal was clear, in Neurim v Generics [2020] EWCA Civ 793, that deciding to uphold the lower court’s decision not to grant a pharmaceutical patent PI was based on the specific facts of that case, the Patents Court has subsequently refused two further pharmaceutical PIs (Neurim v Teva [2022] EWHC 954 (Pat) and [2022] EWHC 1641(Pat), and Novartis v Teva [2022] EWHC 959 (Ch)). [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 12:52 am
The Court referred to the principles set out in General Tire v Firestone Tyre regarding the assessment of “negotiating damages”, namely damages reflecting the sum that would have been agreed between a willing licensor and a willing licensee.In applying General Tire, the Court found that the hypothetical negotiations need to be set in the market as it exists, taking into account the commercial realities of the specific situation. [read post]
