Search for: "US v. Michael Majors"
Results 1081 - 1100
of 3,423
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2019, 12:14 pm
A., Inc. v. [read post]
28 May 2019, 3:45 am
The following evidence inter alia was cited in opposition proceedings:D1: WO 02/15713D2: EP 0949329D3: DE 10163964D6: WO 02/051873D9: WO 95/21240D10: WO 97/29179D15: WO 96/22366D17: WO 00/70064D18: Kunze, "Technology Brewing and Malting", VLB Berlin, 1996, p. 83-87.The following evidence was filed with the appellant's statement setting out the grounds of appeal:D19: Excerpt from Südzucker Handbuch, "Erfrischungsgetränke", 2000D20: Leitsatz für… [read post]
23 May 2019, 12:40 am
Providers of derived communications services which „provide services of major economic importance or to a large number of users“, however, may be subject in whole or in part to the surveillance obligations for providers of telecommunications services (art. 27 para. 3 SPTA). [read post]
19 May 2019, 4:15 pm
By a 4:3 majority the Court allowed the appeal, holding that s.67(8) of RIPA did not oust the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. [read post]
16 May 2019, 1:41 pm
And he rebutted “a certain misleading narrative” offered up by the lobbying arm of the TCPA plaintiffs’ bar (which has profited to the tune of millions of dollars as the cy pres beneficiary in numerous TCPA class action settlements) “that the vast majority of robocalls in the US are perpetrated by US corporations. [read post]
16 May 2019, 4:12 am
At Justia’s Verdict blog, Michael Dorf writes that “[a]lthough the majority opinion repeatedly invoked Founding-era sources, … it nonetheless departed sharply from the brand of originalism that Justice [Clarence] Thomas and his fellow conservatives purport to favor. [read post]
14 May 2019, 9:01 pm
The 4-1 ruling in Chisolm v. [read post]
14 May 2019, 7:29 am
” Welcome, Michael, and thank you for participating in this question-and-answer exchange. * * * “Have you got any candidates? [read post]
13 May 2019, 4:06 am
” We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. [read post]
10 May 2019, 1:12 pm
The Bureau responded by noting that it attempted to adhere to the statutory language wherever possible and did not attempt to alter the Supreme Court’s ruling in Henson v. [read post]
10 May 2019, 4:30 am
The majority (84 percent) of 2019 honorees use a tracking tool or case management system that tracks all reports and related investigations, regardless of how the report was originally made. [read post]
9 May 2019, 6:20 am
” Michael R. [read post]
9 May 2019, 4:00 am
While this provision permits the submission of additional evidence, it cannot be used to add new claims against a respondent for which notice has not been provided (Appeal of Casey-Tomasi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,301; Appeals of Gonzalez, 48 id. 405, Decision No. 15,898). [read post]
9 May 2019, 4:00 am
While this provision permits the submission of additional evidence, it cannot be used to add new claims against a respondent for which notice has not been provided (Appeal of Casey-Tomasi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,301; Appeals of Gonzalez, 48 id. 405, Decision No. 15,898). [read post]
9 May 2019, 4:00 am
While this provision permits the submission of additional evidence, it cannot be used to add new claims against a respondent for which notice has not been provided (Appeal of Casey-Tomasi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,301; Appeals of Gonzalez, 48 id. 405, Decision No. 15,898). [read post]
9 May 2019, 4:00 am
While this provision permits the submission of additional evidence, it cannot be used to add new claims against a respondent for which notice has not been provided (Appeal of Casey-Tomasi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,301; Appeals of Gonzalez, 48 id. 405, Decision No. 15,898). [read post]
6 May 2019, 9:41 am
Both the Supreme Court in the seminal Reno v. [read post]
2 May 2019, 4:08 am
Briefly: Jamie Satterfield reports for the Knoxville News Sentinel on Thacker v. [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 9:01 pm
As Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrote for an en banc majority in one of the cases now before the Supreme Court: Because one cannot fully define a person’s sexual orientation without identifying his or her sex, sexual orientation is a function of sex. [read post]
