Search for: "USA v. Council" Results 161 - 180 of 589
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Mar 2018, 4:32 am by Edith Roberts
City of Riviera Beach, Florida, United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 8:41 am by Kali Borkoski
Petitioners’ reply Amicus brief of Parents Television Council  Title: Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 4:36 am by Edith Roberts
For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that one of the grants, in Janus v. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 4:16 am by Edith Roberts
Whitford and Benisek v. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 6:11 am by Jim Sedor
        Federal: Activist Lawyer Aims to Drop Campaign Restrictions USA Today – Fredreka Schouten | Published: 3/10/2014 Dan Backer is on a campaign finance crusade. [read post]
HollyFrontier argues that the EPA should be allowed deferential treatment in interpreting legislation as established in Chevron USA Inc. v Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 4:45 pm by INFORRM
Mr Justice Silber ruled in the November 2011 case of AM v. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 4:23 am
Allergan USA, Inc., 2009 WL 3294873 (D. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 3:27 am by Edith Roberts
First up is Bucklew v. [read post]
26 Aug 2012, 4:08 pm by dennis l. hall
Such a result would undermine the uniformity and clarity that motivated the creation and passage of the Uniform Act.Firetrace USA, LLC v. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 6:25 am
This is not, after all, a case like Church of Scientology International v. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 4:03 am
As Darren explains, the Supreme Court of the USA has just weighed in on the same matter in the case of Teva v Sandoz.* Exodus 2.0: pirate sites and the seven seasJeremy gives the floor to Míchel Olmedo Cuevas, who seizes the moment when a brand-new Hollywood colossal is being launched to explain the brand-new enforcement measures that the recent Spanish reform provides to battle online copyright infringement.* Softly, softly: General Court no-hopes Pianissimo… [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 1:29 am by INFORRM
Its position is that it operates in accordance with the laws of the USA and that, since it is not a publisher of Blogger under US law, it will only take down libellous material which is the subject of a court decision. [read post]