Search for: "Bui v. State" Results 8681 - 8700 of 9,831
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 May 2007, 9:54 am
Dru Stevenson, Special Solicitude for States: Massachusetts v. [read post]
10 Feb 2023, 12:30 pm by John Ross
" So Kentucky's tax on its own coal—leading to its own power plants to buy coal from other states—can't be offset by artificially discounting the cost of in-state coal because it likely violates the dormant Commerce Clause. [read post]
19 Feb 2022, 11:14 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  The 9th Circuit in Bosley v. [read post]
28 Dec 2016, 3:00 pm by familoo
Do actual practising members of the bar buy this stuff? [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 11:46 am
In 2009 the Feds seized several guitars and pallets of wood from a Gibson factory, and both sides have been wrangling over the goods in a case with the delightful name "United States of America v. [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 1:04 am
Over Federal Restrictions Legal Times Gun rights advocates have filed a new lawsuit in Washington, D.C., federal court, this time seeking to make it possible for American expats to buy guns when they're back home in the United States. [read post]
27 Jun 2007, 9:41 am
Frye, The Peculiar Story of United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 5:06 pm by INFORRM
  In English law the “conventional figures” are much higher than in, say, France but much lower than in the United States. [read post]
12 Aug 2009, 12:49 pm by Ross
I don’t see the differences v. the Lenovo S10 that he does. [read post]
15 Mar 2008, 7:00 am
  Shame about the IP: (Afro-IP),Ethiopia receives US trade mark for Sidamo coffee despite opposition from Starbucks: (The IP Factor), (Afro-IP),CC licensed test for African sleeping sickness: (creativecommons.org),Update on PCT applications filed in Nigeria: (Afro-IP),Parallel imports of DVDs to be tested in South Africa: Universal City Studios v Mr Video: (Afro-IP),The W****D C*P of 2*1*: FIFA’s intellectual property rights in South Africa: (Afro-IP),Namibia to adopt… [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 1:59 pm by Ailyn Cabico
The lack of this exception in the proposed rule constitutes a material adverse business risk to state-registered fund advisers, a serious competitive detriment to our investors, and sets an unlevel playing field that threatens to limit the development and availability of private, state-registered fund management in states that adopt this rule. [read post]