Search for: "Motion Industries, Inc." Results 101 - 120 of 4,320
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Nov 2023, 5:05 am by centerforartlaw
By Kouros Sadeghi-Nejad Introduction As the global climate crisis intensifies, an unlikely industry is bracing for an unpredictable storm of its own: the fine art market. [read post]
12 Nov 2023, 2:35 am by centerforartlaw
Getting clearance for visual artworks displayed on screen Under the Copyright Act, a music video is considered a “motion picture,” which the Act defines as “audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images, which, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with accompanying sounds, if any. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 9:02 pm by Dan Flynn
Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970), which asks whether the burdens on interstate commerce outweigh the putative local benefits of the statute. [read post]
26 Oct 2023, 8:53 am by Silver Law Group
Our lawyers have extensive experience collecting FINRA arbitration awards, prevailing on Motions to Vacate FINRA arbitration awards and using various collection efforts to enforce FINRA awards after they are received. [read post]
20 Oct 2023, 2:40 pm by CFM Admin
Ongoing litigation initiated by industry participants may further delay the effectiveness of these rules. [read post]
19 Oct 2023, 8:59 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
[LexisNexis Commentary: This IMR is particularly interesting because the medication Geodon, which was at issue here, was the subject of a $301 million settlement between Pfizer, Inc. and the U.S. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 1:23 am by Roel van Woudenberg
For all designated States except the US, it names Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the University of Western Ontario as applicants. [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 3:02 pm by NARF
USA (Bristol Bay Pebble Mine; Clean Water Act; state sovereignty) Four petitions for certiorari were denied on 10/2/2023: Bird Industries, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 6:31 am by Dan Bressler
” “A trial court last December dismissed the suit, calling it ‘nothing more than a motion to disqualify’ Crowell from representing the insurer. [read post]