Search for: "Prince v. Young" Results 101 - 120 of 148
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 May 2016, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
In Willow v Information Commissioner & Ministry of Justice this week the Upper Tribunal considered at the question of restraint techniques used in young offender institutions and secure training centres. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am by Ben
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in Folkens v Wyland. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 2:04 pm
Perhaps the most famous case is Video Pipeline Inc. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 8:34 am by Roy Black
And as young people, our time is now. [read post]
12 Nov 2007, 7:50 am
Cystic Fibrosis Chapter 6917 Arlington Road, Suite 308 Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: (301) 657-8444; (877) 657-8444 (Toll Free) Fax: (301) 652-9571 E-mail: metro-dc@cff.org Web: http://www.cff.orgmetrodc.htm Developmental Disabilities State Developmental Disabilities Planning Council MD Developmental Disabilities Council 300 West Lexington Street, Box 10 Baltimore, MD 21201-2323 Phone: (410) 333-3688 (V/TTY); (800) 305-6441 (Toll Free in MD only) E-mail: info@md-council.org Web:… [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 4:00 am by Ken Chasse
Manitoba joined in 1970; British Columbia in 1871; Prince Edward Island in 1873; Alberta and Saskatchewan were established in 1905; and Newfoundland joined in 1949. [read post]
18 Apr 2008, 2:00 am
Protecting computer programs under the Copyright Act: Dais Studios v Bullet Creative: (IP Down Under), Assessing copyright risk in new classroom technologies: (IP Down Under), Cadbury loses battle over exclusive use of colour purple for chocolate wrapping in its case against Darrell Lea: (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog), (IP Down Under), (IPKat), (IPwar’s), Employee or independent contractor? [read post]
20 Sep 2009, 4:26 pm
Disney, on the other hand, has a vast realm of fairies, princesses, dashing princes, and anthropomorphic critters. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am by Ben
In Europe, The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of a copyright holder does not cover the distribution of an object incorporating a work where that object has been altered after its initial marketing to such an extent that it constitutes a new reproduction of that work (Case C‑419/13, Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright) with Eleonora opining that the decision means that that there is no such thing as a general principle of… [read post]