Search for: "State v. South" Results 9721 - 9740 of 11,003
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Sep 2018, 8:06 am
  China, the United States, and Russia are left to squander muscle as they will, always subject to the legitimating judgment of this superego. [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 8:07 am
: (Spicy IP), Latin America: Merck Serono signs distribution agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb for portfolio of established pharmaceutical brands in Latin America: (IP tango), US: Biotech industry growth to slow due to funding pressures and competition from biosimilars: (Managing Intellectual Property), US: House Commerce Committee posts responses to its questions on biogenerics; not surprisingly, the views run the gamut: (FDA Law Blog), US: Biosimilar debate heats up at BIO: (Managing… [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 2:21 pm by Soroush Seifi
 In distinguishing Windisman[28], Winkler J. had stated that in Sutherland the work of the RP was unnecessary to the preparation or presentation of the case. [read post]
26 Oct 2017, 7:38 am by Andrew Koppelman
  The new school of political economy that he created at the University of Virginia was “meant to train a new generation of thinkers to push back against Brown [v. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 10:07 am by AstuteLegalVideos.com
”[v] Soon after this major contract, Klein’s business expanded and reached faraway conflicts in Africa and South America. [read post]
21 Mar 2025, 8:27 am by Adil Ahmad Haque
If South Africa does not request additional provisional measures promptly, then the Court should indicate them at its own initiative without delay. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 5:26 am by Ray Mullman
  That’s also how that canceled check ended as a primary exhibit in the case of State of Texas v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 9:55 am by Geoffrey Rapp
Holthaus,, Jr., Note, Ed O’Bannon v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 8:17 am by Sanford Levinson
  To be sure, Bickel was more than willing  to defend Brown v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 11:25 am by Tana Fye
,” while at the same time concluding that the provisions of ICWA were inapplicable by stating that “these proceedings…actually escape applicable federal law on Indian Child Welfare. [read post]