Search for: "Meyers v. Meyers"
Results 1361 - 1380
of 1,457
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Nov 2011, 4:02 pm
It featured: Paul Staines, Editor, ‘Guido Fawkes’; Jamie East, Managing Editor, ‘Holy Moly’; David Allen Green, ‘Jack of Kent’ blog and legal correspondent of the New Statesman; Richard Wilson, Blogger and tweeter, ‘Don’t Get Fooled’; Sir Christopher Meyer, Former Chairman of the PCC; Martin Moore, Director of the Media Standards Trust; Julian Petley, Chair of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom; John Kampfner, Index on… [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Nail v. [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 4:44 am
Co. v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 3:29 pm
Fallout from Turkey’s shooting down of a Russian fighter jet last Tuesday continues. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 5:11 am
Early cases, such as the 1803 Runkle v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co., 1998 WL 812318, at *23 (M.D. [read post]
11 Mar 2021, 2:33 pm
More recently, the Supreme Court decided the case of Presley v. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 11:33 am
Flat fee v. pay per performance v. tournament—if you do very well, big payment, but otherwise nothing. [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 7:54 am
In NAACP v. [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 7:54 am
In NAACP v. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 5:47 am
But the Supreme Court cases recognizing this right confine it to narrow fields, such as education, Meyer v. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 4:28 pm
v=j0pl_FXt0eMWilliam F. [read post]
16 Aug 2014, 12:15 pm
Sebelius and King v. [read post]
26 Apr 2020, 12:59 pm
LLC v. [read post]
20 May 2022, 6:00 am
A few hours after the OPPO v. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 1:19 pm
From Doe v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 8:10 am
The case is Gingery v. [read post]
12 Nov 2023, 2:35 am
In AWF v Goldsmith, the US Supreme Court clarified that not all works which add “new expression, meaning, or message”[15] will be considered ‘transformative’ by the law, since this would conflict with the copyright holder’s “exclusive right to prepare derivative works,” effectively rendering it useless. [read post]
22 May 2011, 4:03 am
NoveltyThe test for determining whether the invention lacks novelty is the ‘reverse infringement test’ as set out in Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 where Aickin J stated (at 235):‘The basic test for anticipation or want of novelty is the same as that for infringement and generally one can properly ask whether the alleged anticipation would, if the patent were valid, constitute an infringement’. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 4:32 am
I got to meet FedSoc President Gene Meyer. [read post]
