Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 1081 - 1100
of 4,554
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Mar 2012, 2:11 pm
Lucky for us, my brilliant colleague Lee Kovarsky took some time out of his whirlwind schedule to help walk us through the Supreme Court’s post-conviction decision in Martinez v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 4:00 am
[10] Flomo v Firestone Natural Rubber Co, (7th Cir, 11 July 2011) slip op, page 6. [read post]
15 Jul 2020, 10:07 am
46 GDPR exists precisely to justify data transfers to third countries that do not provide an adequate level of data protection. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 10:59 am
False advertising uses v different framework: consider the challenged ad as a whole, including disclaimers and qualifying language. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 12:00 pm
The Black Dog Tavern Company, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 9:55 am
Synthes v. [read post]
31 Aug 2022, 10:38 pm
TCL and Philips v. [read post]
9 May 2022, 7:24 am
In South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Dec 2013, 6:16 am
The opinion does not explain precisely what he argued, but it clearly was based on the premise that searching his home violated the requirements of the 4th Amendment. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 7:55 pm
., LP v. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 12:20 am
The arguments of the parties in appeal were based on the following documents:D1: EP -A- 2 006 406;D5: JP -A- 2000-345296;D7: US -A- 2008/0011393;D8: EP -A- 2 045 341;D8a: Cover of WO -A- 2008/013300;D9: US -A- 2003/0192625;D10: British Standard BS EN 13674-1:2003;D11: Railtrack Company Specification RT/CE/S/061, Issue 2, August 2002;D12: Print out from the internet http://standards.globalspec.com regarding standard NR-RT/CE/S/061.VI. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 12:20 am
The arguments of the parties in appeal were based on the following documents:D1: EP -A- 2 006 406;D5: JP -A- 2000-345296;D7: US -A- 2008/0011393;D8: EP -A- 2 045 341;D8a: Cover of WO -A- 2008/013300;D9: US -A- 2003/0192625;D10: British Standard BS EN 13674-1:2003;D11: Railtrack Company Specification RT/CE/S/061, Issue 2, August 2002;D12: Print out from the internet http://standards.globalspec.com regarding standard NR-RT/CE/S/061.VI. [read post]
24 Feb 2007, 3:05 pm
Scott v. [read post]
7 Mar 2015, 9:26 pm
., Ltd. v. [read post]
8 May 2019, 4:17 pm
The GMC rejected the complaint as not meeting the standard for investigation, which decision was upheld on review following a challenge by Mr Bridle. [read post]
2 May 2007, 4:23 am
Nicolas Economou, CEO of H5, offers useful insights in response to a prior post about software v. lawyers and empirical testing. [read post]
2 May 2014, 2:59 pm
Agency v. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 2:33 pm
Justice Kennedy with opinion in Bethune-Hill v. [read post]
27 May 2010, 10:21 am
Enzo Biochem and Yale University v. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 12:53 pm
Fox News v. [read post]
