Search for: "Hudson v. US Government"
Results 161 - 180
of 604
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2018, 2:52 am
Alternatively, the government argued that trademarks are commercial speech implicating only the intermediate level of scrutiny set forth in the famous Central Hudson case. [read post]
6 Aug 2011, 8:43 pm
Because of Moore v. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 11:02 am
Meat Inst. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2022, 8:29 am
Scollick v. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 7:00 am
by Elizabeth Samson [Elizabeth Samson, Esq. is a Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute] This is our sixth post of our Symposium on the Functional Approach to the Law of Occupation. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 3:13 am
She then rejected the company’s contention that the settlement agreement made such a trial unnecessary: the Supreme Court had noted in Hudson v. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 6:09 pm
To survive the Central Hudson test, section 1052(c) must advance a substantial government interest and be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.[7] The government argues that the provision advances a government interest in protecting the right of publicity of public figures from having their names used in trademarks without their consent. [read post]
16 May 2016, 9:32 am
Hudson, __ N.C. [read post]
16 May 2016, 9:32 am
Hudson, __ N.C. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 7:00 am
David Hudson, Jr. is an assistant professor of law at Belmont University. [read post]
19 May 2014, 5:00 am
Corp. v. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 8:07 am
Vidal v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 11:46 pm
The case is United States v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 9:21 am
(Eugene Volokh) Soeren Kern (Hudson New York) reports: An Austrian appellate court has upheld the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after giving a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 10:32 am
Co. v. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 1:54 pm
Comm'n of NY, 447 US 557 - Supreme Court 1980, citing Bates v. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 8:42 am
Thus, under Reed’s “topic”-based approach, there doesn’t seem to be the need any longer to go through the “commercial speech” rigmarole of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. [read post]
28 Aug 2009, 1:17 pm
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE US v. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 4:49 pm
In Matter of the Town of Waterford v. [read post]
2 Jan 2017, 6:11 am
Hudson, 241 Mich.App 268, 276; 615 NW2d 784 (2000). [read post]