Search for: "State v. Holderness"
Results 1861 - 1880
of 8,247
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Mar 2019, 10:02 am
Therefore, as long as economic rights are concerned, the current trend in relation to subtitles seems to be pretty much the same across different Member States. [read post]
7 Mar 2019, 8:00 pm
ZG TOP Technology Co., Ltd. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 9:26 pm
Since our client resided in Cleveland, Ohio, his application had a better chance compared to states under the 9th Circuit (see Momeni v. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 9:18 am
This Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 7:18 am
Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)Stenberg v. [read post]
5 Mar 2019, 3:32 pm
This is significant because section 715.32(3) prevents the prosecutor from considering the national economic interest in deciding whether to offer an opportunity to negotiate a remediation agreement: Despite paragraph (2)(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the… [read post]
5 Mar 2019, 10:56 am
On March 4, 2019, in a long-awaited decision, Justice Ginsberg delivered the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2019, 7:49 am
Baskin-v-Scoops-Complaint [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 11:32 pm
Yesterday (Monday, March 4, 2019) a Qualcomm v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 7:59 am
In referring to the recent TCL v Ericsson decision from the Central District of California (see Kat post here), Judge Labson stated:"The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that summary judgment on Count III of the FAC is warranted. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 1:43 am
De Wolfe has published an orchestral arrangement of Kenya’s national anthem that it states was created in 1990. [read post]
3 Mar 2019, 3:01 pm
Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2019) EWHC 452 (Admin) (For transparency, I acted for one of the interveners, the Residential Landlords Association, in this case.) [read post]
2 Mar 2019, 6:57 am
Eliot Kim summarized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jam v. [read post]
2 Mar 2019, 4:14 am
The application sought to repress the unauthorized use of Banksy's registered trade marks and reproductions of his/her artworks in the context of an art exhibition in Milan.The text of the decision in RG 52442/2018 Pest Control Office Limited v 24 Ore Cultura s.r.l. is available here.Let's see what happened.BackgroundThe applicant, Pest Control Office, is responsible for issuing certificates of authenticity re Banksy's artworks, and for selling his artworks and organizing… [read post]
28 Feb 2019, 6:41 pm
– UN Observer Bewails)The development of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights by John Ruggie and his team now serves as one of the most influential. templates for developing normative and framework structures for embedding human rights--and for privileging the interests of human rights holders--in many aspects of human activity within and among states. [read post]
27 Feb 2019, 11:08 am
”The final nail on the UFMI coffin is when the judgment states that: “The 1strespondent (URSB) should consider separating societies like in some jurisdictions by having a Society for Authors, performers and Producers because the nature of interests from the rights holders is normally different and, as such, requiring the separation of Copyright holders and related rights holders. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 7:34 pm
Since our client resided in New Jersey, her application had a better chance compared to states under the 9th Circuit (see Momeni v. [read post]
24 Feb 2019, 11:28 am
On April 15, the Apple & contract manufacturers v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 8:07 am
In Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 11:26 pm
While infringement and validity are issues that have nothing to do with a patent holder's behavior, there is a risk to Huawei that jurors will view Samsung as the "good guys" and Huawei as the "bad guys. [read post]
