Search for: "FAIR v. THE STATE"
Results 9801 - 9820
of 30,503
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2017, 12:52 pm
That case (Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina et al. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 10:48 am
It’s about winning, not being fair. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 9:40 am
In 2010 during Hartfield v. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 7:01 am
Fair Housing Justice Center v. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 4:00 am
Holdings Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 3:29 am
Oppressive conduct is evaluated in most states under one of three judicially-created formulations: majority conduct that defeats the reasonable expectations of the minority shareholder; breach of the fiduciary duty of good faith and fair dealing majority shareholders owe minority shareholders; and burdensome, harsh, and wrongful conduct constituting a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing majority shareholders owe minority shareholders in… [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 3:29 am
Oppressive conduct is evaluated in most states under one of three judicially-created formulations: majority conduct that defeats the reasonable expectations of the minority shareholder; breach of the fiduciary duty of good faith and fair dealing majority shareholders owe minority shareholders; and burdensome, harsh, and wrongful conduct constituting a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing majority shareholders owe minority shareholders in… [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 1:00 am
R (HC) v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions & Ors, heard 21-22 Jun 2017. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 7:57 pm
Narechania identifies three types of field splits: splits across related fields, such as a difference between patent and copyright's treatment of an issue like laches; splits across random fields, such as patent law's differing treatment of "willfulness" from Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) cases; and lastly "outliers", where a patent specific rule exists that does not comport with general law. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 4:37 pm
As Professor Coffee discusses in his article, in order to address these issues, the district court in Campo v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 3:55 pm
The concept of allowing default judgments seems fair enough. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 3:55 pm
The concept of allowing default judgments seems fair enough. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 3:07 pm
That case (Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina et al. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 2:01 pm
The report ends with specific recommendations to States, business enterprises, civil society organizations and human rights defenders. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 1:23 pm
See Lipp v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 10:12 am
See Shamoun & Norman, LLP v. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 11:39 pm
See Dulong v. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 6:55 am
Moon v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 3:33 pm
A person signing a DMCA notice must state a good faith belief that the use is not authorized, declare her authority to act under penalty of perjury, and risk damages for misrepresentation under section 512(f).[3] That source of protection has not technically disappeared, but its value is largely lost when notices are generated not by a person, but by a machine. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 2:07 pm
In (weak) defense of section 512(g), the transparency and expectation of procedural fairness created by the counter-notice process may be acting as a deterrent for some bad faith removal requests. [read post]
