Search for: "State v. Strange"
Results 1781 - 1800
of 2,182
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Apr 2012, 7:52 pm
In the holding of K.E.M. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 4:48 am
In Gann v. [read post]
20 Nov 2024, 6:00 am
In State v. [read post]
1 Dec 2015, 9:39 pm
That’s what the case of Fisher v. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
Stancil v. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 8:47 am
The case of North Carolina v. [read post]
18 Feb 2012, 5:15 am
Strangely, the majority opinion seems to forget these points when it says, “we conclude that the text of § 1514A(a) is unambiguous in limiting whistleblower protection to employees of public companies[.] [read post]
20 Jul 2008, 6:34 pm
Desmond v. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 11:32 am
Marsh v. [read post]
19 Dec 2023, 6:22 pm
"District of Columbia v. [read post]
17 Oct 2009, 2:12 pm
Several commenters have stated that men, gay men particularly, are at much greater cancer risk than the article says, for example. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 5:00 am
(Spicy IP) Copyright in characters – III – Delhi High Court decision in Raja Pocket Books v Radha Pocket Books (Spicy IP) Kenya Anti-Counterfeit Bill 2008 passed (Afro-IP) Kenya’s new anti-counterfeit legislation discussion (Afro-IP) Kuwait Kuwait adopts international classes 42-45 (Kuwaitmark) Macedonia New Industrial Property Law (Class 46) Nigeria Court moves from Uyo to continue proceedings in New York in… [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 2:46 am
” Winters v. [read post]
18 Apr 2022, 9:28 pm
See United States v. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 9:36 pm
The Supreme Court explained this enforcement rationale in its POM Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 3:12 pm
277/10, Martin Luksan v Petrus van der Let, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria), in which the legal issues were a good deal more complex than "who gets what? [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 9:05 am
If this sounds strange, read on... [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 2:53 am
It seems strange that India should regard this as compatible with TRIPS when other countries do not. [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 6:35 am
Second, Neal Devins argued that by the 1992 decision in Casey v. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 4:41 pm
It would be particularly strange if a data subject was able to rely on a legal provision which was not even set out in the GDPR (as the Guidelines currently clearly state also at p. 6) but not on a breach of duty found not within Article 6 but, say, in others parts of chapter II. [read post]
