Search for: "Basic v. Carl"
Results 141 - 149
of 149
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Sep 2008, 2:50 pm
" (citing in footnote 57 to Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana 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]
2 Sep 2008, 1:12 pm
But so far the SCOTUS hasn't seen fit to resolve the important question.The second petition, filed by Carl and I together, is Green v. [read post]
3 Feb 2008, 3:13 pm
There is no reference to the Euro v. [read post]
3 Sep 2007, 2:57 am
I am back in Washington, DC, where I'm visiting at Georgetown for the Fall Semester after four days in Chicago for American Political Science Association annual meeting. [read post]
26 Jul 2007, 11:18 am
Sykes v. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 6:22 pm
"WARF's stem cell policies have evolved over the years, always in favor of increasing access and making it easier for scientists to move the technology forward," said Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of WARF. [read post]
22 Dec 2006, 11:31 am
What follows is a compendium of substantive analyses on some of the key issues of the War on Terror by the authors here at Balkinization.The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Civil Liberties, the War on Terror and Presidential PowerPart I-- Civil LibertiesPart II-- Presidential Power and Constitutional StructurePart III-- Torture and the "Torture Memos"Part IV- The NSA Controversy and Government SurveillancePart V-- HamdanPart VI-- The Military Commissions Act of… [read post]
21 Oct 2006, 12:15 am
This reasoning seems very close to that of Carl Lüder, a well known German law of armed conflicts expert of this era, who argued for robust military action that was unfettered by concern for international law.Schmitt's ahistorical analysis suggests a dismissive attitude towards basic law of armed conflict rules and a will to be driven by his best assessment of the short-term political interests of his state. [read post]
