Search for: "Company Doe v. Public Citizen" Results 1081 - 1100 of 2,017
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Dec 2009, 6:05 pm by Ben Sheffner
CC Bill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007) (state IP claims immunized under Section 230), with Doe v. [read post]
10 Jan 2023, 6:17 am by Kenneth Propp
Over time, governments have adopted protections for individuals—such as independent oversight—that focus on the interests of their own citizens, not foreigners. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 6:36 am by Marty Lederman
”What the ACA does, instead, is to impose a tax on large employers (just as with Social Security), ensuring that they share in the national burden of the new public entitlement—but with an option allowing such employers to avoid the tax if they offer a health insurance plan to their employees. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 8:36 am
The Court does not accept plaintiff's self-centered view that the public interest requires disclosure to [it] of the list sought. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 5:38 pm
But win or lose, these cases expose to the glare of international publicity environmental practices that fall short of the standards oil companies use when operating in developed countries. [read post]
20 May 2013, 8:10 am by Rebecca Tushnet
They look like what a (fictional) citizen of Gotham might find if they were looking for information on the (fictional) Rykin Data company. [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 4:40 pm by INFORRM
These publishers are effectively owned by the same parent company. [read post]
6 Aug 2020, 4:01 pm by INFORRM
The first claim (Craig Wright v Magnus Granath [2020] EWHC 51 (QB)) relates to Magnus Granath, a citizen of Norway, resident in Oslo, tweeting under the Twitter handle @hodlonaut. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 10:27 pm by Leland E. Beck
Sebelius), the other enjoining the rule as it may be applied to a single for-profit company owned by a family with religious beliefs contrary to the rule (Newland v. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 10:27 pm by Leland E. Beck
Sebelius), the other enjoining the rule as it may be applied to a single for-profit company owned by a family with religious beliefs contrary to the rule (Newland v. [read post]