Search for: "State v. Cross #1"
Results 141 - 160
of 8,327
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2024, 7:53 am
The argument concerned four applications from industrial polluters and allied States (consolidated under Ohio v. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 12:28 am
No matter the outcome, the case aims to provide clarity around whether ethical considerations of sourcing immense amounts of copyrighted material—instrumental in training in AI image generators—cross the line into unlawful conduct. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm
Source/origin and control over quality is the core of TM and has special relevance when trying to figure out what rights the plaintiff is claiming to own; sponsorship/affiliation is of lesser importance, albeit still relevant; sponsorship/affiliation might be better handled under 43, which could have stronger guardrails; consider Lexmark as a case about 43(a), which the Court says it is, and not about 43(a)(1)(B) only. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 1:04 pm
The latest is the landmark ruling by Justice Aylen of the Federal Court in Province of Alberta et al v. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 5:38 am
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a set of stay applications, consolidated under the caption Ohio v. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 12:47 pm
Supreme Court, however, held in AMG Capital Management LLC v. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 6:39 am
[This post is cross-posted at Transnational Litigation Blog] [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 5:40 am
"] From Manookian v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 1:45 am
On 14 February 2024 there was a strike out/summary judgment application in the case of Chowdhury-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department KB-2023-003368. [read post]
18 Feb 2024, 6:45 am
Articles 3(c) and 5(1) address formal and substantive validity. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 12:30 pm
Note: Compare with Dick Heller of Heller v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 4:27 am
June 14, 2023) — ruling that communications between South Dakota state officials and the National Guard (a hybrid state-federal entity) did not fall within Exemption 5’s consultant corollary exception because they were not made for purpose of aiding the National Guard’s deliberations; noting that its ruling “produced an odd outcome considering that these discussions would be protected either under Exemption 5 (if wholly federal) and under South Dakota law… [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 11:41 pm
” That case, now styled Murthy v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:08 pm
The relief has been in place in some form since 1 July 2013. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 3:33 pm
Bose Corp. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:22 am
(Accent Delight), an offshore company with Dmitry Rybolovlev as the ultimate beneficial owner, v. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 12:48 pm
State v. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 11:53 am
Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 3:44 pm
USSC Report, page 1. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 1:02 am
Reserved Judgments Nagi v Sinniah Santhiramoulesan, heard 22 and 23 January 2024 (Collins Rice J) Sinton v Maybourne Hotels Limited, heard 19 and 20 December 2023 (Chamberlain J) Dyson v Channel 4, heard 15 December 2023 (HHJ Lewis) Pacini v Dow Jones, heard 13 December 2023 (HHJ Parkes KC) Amersi v BBC, heard 8 December 2023 (HHJ Lewis) Wilson v Mendelsohn and others, heard 4 to 8 December 2023 (HHJ Parkes KC)… [read post]
