Search for: "Edwards v. Cross"
Results 141 - 160
of 637
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Feb 2019, 6:04 am
Potential Changes to Fund of Funds Arrangements Posted by Thomas Hiller, Brian McCabe, and Edward Baer, Ropes & Gray LLP, on Friday, February 1, 2019 Tags: Exchange-traded funds, Investment advisers, Investment Advisers Act, Investor protection, Risk management, SEC, SEC rulemaking, Section 12(d), Securities regulation The Latest on Proxy Access Posted by Holly J. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 7:30 pm
Brewer and Gagnon v. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 12:44 pm
Royal Dutch Petroleum Co Hayk Kupelyants & Sylvain Bollée, Interpretation at cross-purposes: Dallah v. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 9:19 am
| The IP term (thus far) of the millennium: the curious story of the adoption of "patent troll" and "internet trolling" | No pain, no gain: Plausibility in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Testing the boundaries of subjectivity: Infringement of Swiss-type claims in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Is SPINNING generic? [read post]
2 Jan 2019, 2:55 pm
However, the denial of a cross-motion for summary judgment is only reviewable if that cross-motion sought a disposition of all claims in the trial court. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 2:00 am
Bush v. [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 7:51 am
Facts: This case (Federal Trade Commission v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 5:50 am
For those like the AmeriKat who were unable to attend the Congress, her colleagues in the form of Charlie French (one of this year's Young EPLAW mock trial award winners) and Edward Nodder of Bristows report on the events below. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 5:22 am
§ 1182(f)—the same provision that the government cited to support the travel ban upheld by the Supreme Court term in Trump v. [read post]
2 Dec 2018, 7:49 am
To punish such a parent by requiring higher child support ... is neither good law nor good policy” (Abouhalkah v. [read post]
2 Dec 2018, 7:49 am
To punish such a parent by requiring higher child support ... is neither good law nor good policy” (Abouhalkah v. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 2:43 pm
We’re pleased to cross-post a piece by our sister blog, Trading Secrets, regarding California’s peculiar take on employee non-solicitation provisions. [read post]
23 Nov 2018, 3:11 pm
Over the week of Nov. 12, the military commission in United States v. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 4:00 am
In its 2008 landmark decision Edwards v. [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 7:45 am
In its discussion of Moyes, the Court challenged the Moyes court’s “reasonableness” and slight affect approach to employee non-solicitation provisions and contrasted it with the plain language of 16600 and subsequent case law in the California Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. [read post]
12 Nov 2018, 5:00 am
The gist is that those older cases pre-dated a significant Supreme Court of California decision in a case called Edwards v. [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 7:18 am
The published case report by Ratner helps demonstrate that Allen v. [read post]
21 Oct 2018, 11:38 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 4:00 am
Such innovation is now necessary: (1) not only because of the volume and complexity of legal literature in each area and the multiple ways of researching it; (2) but also so as to make available to all lawyers such knowledge in aid of preparing competent cross-examinations and arguments with which to challenge the reliability of such frequently used sources of evidence; and, (3) to argue how the rules of procedure that control proceedings concerning, discovery, disclosure, and… [read post]
