Search for: "United States v. Provident National Bank"
Results 1141 - 1160
of 2,056
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Oct 2015, 11:51 am
” Granted, not all data is covered by the European Directive (bank transfers and hotel bookings, for example, are excluded), but about 4500 companies nevertheless rely on the safe harbor framework to transfer commercial data from Europe to the United States. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 9:30 am
That 1872 ruling, in the case of United States v. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 12:09 pm
National Westminster Bank PLC, 768 F.3d 202, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 12:09 pm
National Westminster Bank PLC, 768 F.3d 202, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 12:09 pm
National Westminster Bank PLC, 768 F.3d 202, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 12:09 pm
National Westminster Bank PLC, 768 F.3d 202, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 12:09 pm
National Westminster Bank PLC, 768 F.3d 202, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am
For example, a U.S. provider that stores data in the United States, from the email account of a British citizen located in England, might be simultaneously required (by DRIPA) and forbidden (by ECPA/SCA) to produce the email.[19] Correspondingly, a U.S. provider that stores email abroad might be simultaneously required (by the SCA) and forbidden (by a foreign data protection law) to produce the email. [read post]
27 Sep 2015, 6:21 pm
Supreme Court in its 2010 decision in Morrison v. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 6:01 am
One of the justifications for a local final appellate court was that it would enhance access to justice as litigants would not have to bear the costs of travel to the United Kingdom. [read post]
6 Sep 2015, 8:03 pm
The judgment debtor acknowledges that it owns assets in the United States. [read post]
4 Sep 2015, 1:17 pm
See United States v. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 11:57 am
The United States also slapped sanctions on entities based in China, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. [read post]
26 Aug 2015, 7:04 am
As a result, the early United States was not able to provide adequate defense against the Indian tribes to the West and Europeans in the East. [read post]
2 Aug 2015, 5:10 pm
On July 30, 2015, Judge Rakoff released the memorandum opinion in which provided the reasons for his rulings. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 4:00 am
Section 2333 reads, in relevant part, as follows: Any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees. [read post]
24 Jul 2015, 10:35 am
The CWA provides that the states are to set the TMDL and the EPA is to approve or disapprove it. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 2:18 pm
Why don’t they capture an organization like WIPO, as we see them do on the national level? [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 2:43 am
| 3-D Lego trade mark | Garcia v Google | B+ subgroup | EU trade mark reform and counterfeits in transit | French v Battistelli | US v Canada over piracy | UK Supreme Court in Starbucks | BASCA v The Secretary of State for Business | Patent litigation, music, politics | Product placement in Japan. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 8:00 pm
” Iran's Obligations: The next section, entitled “Nuclear”--together with Annex material that it references--provides the meat of Iran’s obligations under the deal. [read post]
