Search for: "Action Recycling, Inc. v. United States"
Results 121 - 130
of 130
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jun 2020, 1:12 am
Inghams sought to restrain the referral to arbitration and failed at first instance; see Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Hannigan [2019] NSWSC 1186. [read post]
2 Feb 2023, 4:35 pm
State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2016, 5:05 pm
The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Google Spain on the right to be forgotten, which means that claims concerning the right to be forgotten should be submitted directly to Google Inc in the United States. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am
– Trading Markets.com, July 21, 2010 Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2010, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with 163 defendants (each of which is identified in the proposed Decree) in United States of America v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm
” (United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2008, 11:01 pm
& Ors v Deisel Spa and Case C-302/08 Zino Davidoff SA v Bendesfinanzdirektion Sudost: (Class 46), EPO Boards of Appeal finds that when a fax is transmitted and an ‘OK’ is noted by the sender, this is evidence that the transmission was successful: (IPKat), Professor Hugenholtz slams European Commission for ignoring evidence on copyright extension: (Techdirt) Germany Federal Patent Court publishes guidelines on colour trade mark Signal Yellow:… [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 12:31 pm
Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 2:38 pm
Greenland correctly senses that many errors seem endlessly recycled, and that courts could benefit from disinterested commentary on cases. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 2:30 pm
Greenland correctly senses that many errors seem endlessly recycled, and that courts could benefit from disinterested commentary on cases. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
But his administration’s decision on this case, Connecticut v. [read post]
