Search for: "COCHRAN V. STATE"
Results 121 - 140
of 345
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2016, 4:10 am
This fall, in Moore v. [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 5:40 am
State v. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
Corp. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
Corp. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
Corp. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2016, 9:05 pm
[Ira Stoll, more] “Returning to Common-Law Principles of Insider Trading After United States v. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 6:41 am
P. 12(b)(6) (stating that a complaint may be dismissed for `failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted’). [read post]
3 Apr 2016, 7:01 pm
James highlighted the case of DuPont v Kolon - which concerned the Kevlar trade secrets (read about the case here in the testimony from Karen Cochran) - and recent cases concerning Chinese espionage (US v Xu and Zi, US v Xi and US v Chen) as examples of criminal trade secrets prosecution. [read post]
6 Feb 2016, 10:14 am
Legislature v. [read post]
5 Feb 2016, 7:55 am
Batty v. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 1:18 pm
Cochran, only to duck the issue when the plaintiff in that case died after argument. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 4:08 pm
There were also important decisions from the long dormant Investigatory Powers Tribunal which at least chipped away at the edges of state surveillance. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 11:36 am
United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993). [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 7:37 am
Answering one of the first questions about the importance of trade secrets, Cochran stated that trade secrets have always been important to her industry and to DuPont. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 7:08 pm
Disability *Cochran v. [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 2:18 pm
Kirkland v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 8:40 am
Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law §27, pp. 171–172 (15th ed. 1993); Cochran v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 6:40 pm
A Daubert motion is the outcome of a 1993 Supreme Court case, Daubert v. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 10:55 am
Falls Homeowners Association, Inc., 441 Md. 290, 107 A.3d 1183 (Md. 2015). [2] Cochran v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 7:11 am
Further, where the letter of intent is unambiguous and constitutes an enforceable contract, it is unnecessary to have a plenary hearing on the merits of a motion to enforce a settlement agreementFacts: The appeal arose out of the execution of a letter of intent which was the result of the settlement of litigation over the contested ownership of parking spaces.Analysis: Distinguishing Cochran v Norkunas, which held that the parties did not intend to be bound by… [read post]
