Search for: "United States vs. Holder"
Results 161 - 180
of 330
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Feb 2016, 4:36 pm
As a result of this decision, several states began to enact corporate indemnification statutes.8 In 1967, the State of Delaware passed new indemnification laws specifically authorizing corporations to purchase D&O liability insurance; by 1973, 25 other states had followed Delaware’s lead.9 Until this time, it was unclear if a corporation could legally pay the cost of the individual liability of a director or officer under the corporate indemnification… [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 9:20 am
Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 15-326 I/P Engine, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 1:57 am
While the role of precious metals in monetary affairs declined throughout the 20th century, with many episodes of fiat currencies untied to precious metals inflating and hyperinflating, under the post-World War II Bretton Woods system United States and its allies up to 1968 had a gold window whereby authorized high rollers (among them most other governments) could still cash in their dollars for gold at a promised official rate. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 6:15 am
The same is true for the United States, which has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, but has not ratified it. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 7:03 am
(prior posts in the series include Day 1: US Blocks Balancing Provisions, Day 2: Locking in Digital Locks, Day 3: Copyright Term Extension, Day 4: Copyright Notice and Takedown Rules, Day 5: Rights Holders “Shall” vs. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 7:23 am
Australia obtained a side letter with the United States that largely addresses the concern. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 2:16 pm
Rosario, et al. vs. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 6:54 am
The key exception is the United States, which does not have an omnibus privacy law nor a privacy commissioner, relying instead on FTC enforcement of privacy policies. [read post]
13 Jan 2016, 7:36 am
The ongoing dispute over what this provision means is the source of some of the opposition to the TPP in the United States (particularly since Australia maintains its current approach is compliant with the TPP). [read post]
12 Jan 2016, 6:54 am
The Trouble with the TPP series now shifts to patent law reforms and the likely costs to the health care system (prior posts include Day 1: US Blocks Balancing Provisions, Day 2: Locking in Digital Locks, Day 3: Copyright Term Extension, Day 4: Copyright Notice and Takedown Rules, Day 5: Rights Holders “Shall” vs. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 6:30 am
An examination of the Trouble with the TPP copyright provisions would not be complete without discussing how Canada reformed its law before entering the negotiations as part of the price of admission to the TPP talks (prior posts include Day 1: US Blocks Balancing Provisions, Day 2: Locking in Digital Locks, Day 3: Copyright Term Extension, Day 4: Copyright Notice and Takedown Rules, Day 5: Rights Holders “Shall” vs. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 9:42 am
"Ladouceur vs Macado (court records)A Roanoke tattoo artist has brought a federal lawsuit against a local restaurant chain, claiming that an image used in recent promotions is the monster he created. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 6:07 am
Supreme Court decision in Obergefell vs. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 4:51 am
The particular case, United States vs. [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 8:24 am
Fact vs. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 11:27 pm
While it's intellectually consistent, I disagree with the unbelievable discrepancy between Apple and WilmerHale's positions on SEP vs. non-SEP royalties. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 9:17 am
More and more states are considering laws prohibiting such actions, and [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 8:30 am
He is a 1994 graduate of Yale Law School and a former law clerk to Judge Kermit Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 8:30 am
He is a 1994 graduate of Yale Law School and a former law clerk to Judge Kermit Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 12:10 pm
At all times material hereto, the Plaintiffs have been engaged and continue to be engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 3. [read post]
