Search for: "Hoopes v. Hoopes"
Results 121 - 140
of 414
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Dec 2016, 2:47 pm
AARP v. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 12:00 am
In other big news, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General to weigh in on one of the fair use cases we’ve been championing for years, Lenz v. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 2:56 am
Essentially, if no copying was identified, it was game over for the Claimant but once copying is found, the Claimant has to jump through a few more hoops such as disregarding features which are not protected (e.g. due to falling within a "must fit" exclusion or failing the originality test). [read post]
12 Nov 2016, 2:38 pm
[Ilya Shapiro and Frank Garrison, Cato, on Blackman v. [read post]
26 Oct 2016, 6:46 am
This left people with the option to set up residency in other states in order to qualify to file for divorce jurisdictionally, which takes 60-90 days and an intent to reside there indefinitely.Fortunately for these couples, the recent United States Supreme Court ruling Obergefell v. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 11:56 am
Reporting car accident and accident benefit fraud should NOT be an exercise of jumping through hoops. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 11:56 am
Reporting car accident and accident benefit fraud should NOT be an exercise of jumping through hoops. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 4:31 am
This is a revised edition of my February 2014 post, which was published immediately after the CJEU's Svensson decision on copyright and linking. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 4:31 am
This is a revised edition of my February 2014 post, which was published immediately after the CJEU's Svensson decision on copyright and linking. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 4:31 am
This is a revised edition of my February 2014 post, which was published immediately after the CJEU's Svensson decision on copyright and linking. [read post]
11 Sep 2016, 4:04 am
Same sentence, different hoops. [read post]
10 Sep 2016, 6:47 pm
Kammen says this is an unfair and additional hoop for the defense to jump through when the prosecution isn’t held to the same standard. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 8:07 am
Villalpando v. [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 4:37 pm
The judgment follows Brett Wilson, albeit in this case it seems that the claimant did not seek or obtain a Norwich Pharmacal order in the first instance (Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Comrs [1974] AC 133). [read post]
5 Jul 2016, 11:57 pm
Also the case of R v. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 9:21 am
The AG issued his opinion on the status of dynamic IP addresses in connection with the case Patrick Breyer v. [read post]
16 May 2016, 9:15 am
Take the case I read the other day, Goodrich v. [read post]
9 May 2016, 11:17 am
The December 2015 determination of the Ombud for Financial Service Providers in De Hoop Steenwerwe v Finmar Makelaars reminds us of the duties imposed on FSPs by the FAIS Act and the FAIS General Code. [read post]
3 May 2016, 10:41 am
Those reports rightly point to the €1,250,000 damages award in Leech v Independent Newspapers [2014] IESC 79 (19 December 2014). [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 4:24 am
The next level of problem arises from the Supreme Court’s 2013 holding in McBurney v. [read post]
