Search for: "MATTER OF C B J B" Results 1721 - 1740 of 3,062
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jul 2012, 8:00 am by Jim Singer
  The dissent also noted that “[j]ust a few months ago, the Supreme Court reversed us in a §101 case for a second time in its last three terms, hinting (not so tacitly) that our subject matter patentability test is not sufficiently exacting. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 3:22 pm by Stephen Page
Reference was then made to the judgment of Heydon J in Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531, in reliance upon which it was submitted that the “discretionary functions carried out by a family consultant” gave rise to obligations of the kind to which Heydon J referred in the context of the Industrial Relations Court. [read post]
26 May 2015, 9:51 am by Rebecca Tushnet
(A) we’re not, (B) if we were that would be troubling, (C) we are so far away from the purpose of the DMCA to protect (c) works from (c) infringement. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 6:52 am by Schachtman
Under the current version of Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the scope of required disclosure in the expert report has been narrowed in some respects. [read post]
22 Feb 2020, 6:11 am by Chris Wesner
§ 1334(b) and the Standing Order of Reference, Amended General Order No. 05‐02 (S.D. [read post]
3 Dec 2016, 8:15 am by Alex Young
   j) Electronic Communication Challenges with electronic proxies include the lack of signature and the difficulty with identifying the issuer. [read post]
3 Dec 2016, 8:15 am by Alex Young
   j) Electronic Communication Challenges with electronic proxies include the lack of signature and the difficulty with identifying the issuer. [read post]
3 Dec 2016, 8:15 am by Alex Young
   j) Electronic Communication Challenges with electronic proxies include the lack of signature and the difficulty with identifying the issuer. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 4:00 am by Administrator
R v Plant, [1993] 3 SCR 281 at para 45; R v Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, [2004] 3 SCR 432 at para 32; R v Cole, 2012 SCC 53, [2012] 3 SCR 34 at paras 39-58; R v Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, [2009] 1 SCR 579 at para 27. 5 Supra note 4 at para 27. 6 2014 SCC 43, [2014] 2 SCR 212 at para 18. 7 Plant, supra note 4 at para 20. 8 Ibid. 9 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. 10 2010 SCC 55 at para 38, [2010] 3 SCR 211, per Deschamps J; para… [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 9:54 am by Larry Catá Backer
Law reviews are ranked according to four categories: Category A includes the most highly reputed periodicals; category B are good law reviews; category C are intermediate level journals; and category D is logically, those less reputed. [read post]