Search for: "Hurt v. United States" Results 981 - 1000 of 1,719
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jan 2014, 5:50 pm by Jason Epstein
In April 2013 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Missouri v. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 6:50 am by Amy Howe
Yesterday’s second argument was in United States v. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 4:36 am by Yishai Schwartz
” Ben also endorses the idea that NSA ought be given statutory authority to  continue  surveillance on targets when they first enter the United States. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 5:23 pm by Dr. Shezad Malik
A hearing has been set for January 14 in United States District Court for the Central District of California in Santa Ana, California. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 11:20 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Basic, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 5:01 am
The decisionThe IPO’s decision focused on the words of section 3(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which states that “trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character” -- an absolute bar to registration that comes from Article 3(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive and is paralleled in Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-37/03 BioID v OHIM stated that the various… [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 11:04 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Also deceptive mailings: “Prize Notification Bureau” with “State of California Commisioners of Registration” seal—FTC v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 8:15 am by Eugene Volokh
The one time it came before for the Court was in Gallagher v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 12:33 pm by Ilya Somin
In that context, banning child labor often ends up hurting poor families rather than helping them, as I explained here: By modern standards, the United States in 1918 was a very poor society. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 8:05 pm by Ken White
Campaign Finance: The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 9:01 pm by Marci A. Hamilton
  The Supreme Court absolutely got it right in Employment Div. v. [read post]