Search for: "Company Doe v. Public Citizen"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 1,809
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2022, 4:48 pm
The dispute related to eight articles published online in Swedish by the Defendants that were alleged to be defamatory of C1, a Swedish citizen and director of C2, an English apex holding company. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 4:19 pm
SpainDario v. [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 1:21 pm
Companies are responsible for both express and implied claims. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 1:00 pm
The court’s decision in Fulton v. [read post]
28 Feb 2008, 8:39 am
Public Citizen took the oh-so nuanced position that "People will die if they are getting drugs that don't have clear evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 2:56 pm
Will it empower the average citizen? [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 9:01 pm
United States and Printz v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 1:00 pm
McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 2:56 pm
Alternatively, the defences of truth and public interest were made out [175-6]. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:04 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in Ewing v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 8:10 pm
EPA’s veto expressly allowed those operations which had gone ahead under an agreement between the citizen plaintiffs and the company to continue. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 1:17 am
While the MOJ notes that the courts are the final arbiter of this determination, the Government itself does not expect that companies merely listed on the London Stock Exchange without a "demonstrable business presence" in the U.K. are subject to liability under Section 7 of the Act. [read post]
12 Sep 2008, 11:53 pm
Is Public Citizen equally liable for trademark infringement and dilution? [read post]
18 Sep 2022, 4:19 am
” Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of “the modern public square,” Packingham v. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 3:50 am
Earlier this month, the DC Circuit exposed the flaws in the 9th’s logic in US v. [read post]
21 Aug 2022, 1:31 am
”Balaskas v. [read post]
4 Sep 2018, 3:35 pm
Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Oct 2023, 8:27 am
The government, the court of appeals reasoned, does not have an interest in “restricting speech critical of government officials or public figures” through trademarks. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 7:37 am
Because of the important consumer benefits from rules that protect the ability of businesses to engage in truthful comparative advertising, Public Citizen has litigated that right over the years in a line of cases running from Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 9:04 am
Because this case involves public employment and a (possibly) Constitutional right, it does not apply directly to the private sector. [read post]
