Search for: "Second Nature Designs Ltd. v. United States"
Results 121 - 140
of 237
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 May 2019, 9:18 am
Co., 49 A.D.2d 250 (4th Dept. 1974) (distinguishing manufacturing and design defects, and pe [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 10:14 am
United States, 13-9026, which is back for its second week. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 4:00 am
Applications for information about records management and to know how ERMSs were searched for relevant records are refused, e.g.: Zenex Enterprises Ltd. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 4:00 am
Applications for information about records management and to know how ERMSs were searched for relevant records are refused, e.g.: Zenex Enterprises Ltd. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 8:14 pm
Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth. [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 8:14 pm
Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth. [read post]
27 Jul 2008, 3:27 pm
United States, 116 U. [read post]
2 May 2022, 12:59 pm
Cir. 2002) quoting Group One, Ltd. v. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 5:27 am
The second is whether diverging legal frameworks between Member States hamper the principle of free movement of goods. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 11:17 am
The concept of adverse possession was subsequently adopted in the United States. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 9:30 am
As summarised in an Isle of Man judgment, the scheme resembled a “Ponzi” scheme in that apparent repayments to HC were in fact funded in a circular way by HC itself: see paragraph 30 of the judgment of His Honour Deemster Corlett, Heather Capital Limited v KPMG Audit LLC, 17 November 2015. [9] A third party, Nicholas Levene, was a participant in the scheme. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 9:26 am
British Sky Broadcasting Ltd., [2017], 1 All E.R. 700 (C.A.), at para. 53). [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 9:24 pm
Ford Motor Co. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2008, 2:43 am
– discussion of Washington Post article on Ismed’s efforts to promote follow-on biologics approval pathway: (Patent Baristas), (Patent Docs), US: Congressional fact-finding on follow-on biologics: (Patent Docs), US: David v Monsanto: Biotechnology patent ‘exhaustion’ after Quanta, Supreme Court petition: (Hal Wegner), US: Ulysses Pharmaceuticals announces issuance of patent for novel class of ant [read post]
26 Aug 2018, 3:51 pm
Second, Defendants attempt to impose several new requirements that, they maintain, the NRA must satisfy in order to state a First Amendment retaliation claim. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 4:09 pm
First, Dr Rolph identifies problems in the Lange (Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520) defence, noting it was not followed in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Pty Ltd [2001] 2 AC 227, a decision which the Australian courts have in turn refused to recognise, and which the High Court of Australia has declined opportunities to consider ever since, despite hinting at it in 2002: Skalkos v Assaf [2002] HCA Trans 649 (13 December 2002). [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
The plaintiff in Bartlett was forced to assert that bogus design defect claim not because of preemption (the rulings preceded PLIVA v. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 4:00 am
Department or Homeland Security issued a “National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin,” warning of, “a heightened threat environment across the United States,” and, “violent riots have continued in recent days,” and, “ideologically-motivated actors” could incite further violence. [read post]
16 Jun 2019, 12:42 pm
Montreal Trading Ltd. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2019, 12:42 pm
Montreal Trading Ltd. v. [read post]
