Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B." Results 1181 - 1200 of 15,314
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Feb 2023, 1:09 pm by Kevin LaCroix
 Under section 172 of the UK Companies Act, directors are under an obligation to promote the success of the company having regard to the following specific factors: (a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term (b) the interests of the company’s employees (c) the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others (d) the impact of the company’s operations on the… [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 7:32 am by Sarah Baumgartel
United States, No. 22-340, to clarify the First Step Act’s expansion of 18 U.S.C. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 2:17 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
(b) Does the 1977 Act provide for the grant of a patent without a named human inventor? [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 2:00 am by Anna Maria Stein
Regarding the CJEU decision in Audi v OHIM C‑398/08,  the GC noted that the factual context of the case was substantially different, since the slogan “Vorsprung durch Technik” was considered renowned and had been used for many years by Audi to promote the sale of its motor vehicles in class 12. [read post]
26 Feb 2023, 6:00 am by Lawrence Solum
Second, the limits imposed by Rawls' ideal of public reason do not apply to all actions by the state or even to all coercive uses of state power. [read post]
25 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
They walk around confused about sponsorship b/c of their priors! [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 4:39 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Makes it much more complicated to figure out whether a doctrine is looking at the world through a distorted lens b/c the world has changed. [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 7:07 am by Eleonora Rosati
Standard International Management v EUIPO Case T-768/20 EU General Court (July 2022)Can a hotel in the United States use an EU trade mark? [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 6:57 am by John Elwood
United States present the question of how that provision should be read: whether a defendant is ineligible for relief from the mandatory minimum if her criminal history runs afoul of any one of the disqualifying criteria in subsections (A), (B), or (C), or is ineligible only if her criminal history runs afoul of all three disqualifying criteria, subsections (A), (B), and (C). [read post]