Search for: "Does 1-41"
Results 1941 - 1960
of 4,618
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2017, 4:42 am
That was the issue before Arnold J. in his latest judgment considering the SPC Regulation in (1) Sandoz Limited (2) Hexal AG v (1) G.D. [read post]
5 May 2017, 1:45 pm
Mot. 1). [read post]
5 May 2017, 2:40 am
View more 1950s Strats here: http://goo.gl/uRJfKI 1 Mr. [read post]
4 May 2017, 1:22 pm
Person 1”), while 1,200 contained U.S. person information that was revealed from the beginning. [read post]
3 May 2017, 1:05 pm
Doe did not appeal the Decryption Order. [read post]
2 May 2017, 8:36 am
The legislation would not alter the current three-tier penalty structure or the standards for establishing a penalty under each tier, and does not define how administrative law judges and federal district courts should interpret the “each act or omission” language in the penalty statutes.[2] The bill was introduced in the Senate by U.S. [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 9:15 am
Corp., 850F.3d 1332, 1340–41 (Fed. [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 5:20 am
The court concluded that this result makes little sense as:1. [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 2:40 am
This is essentially because the intervention needed to fall within the scope of Article 3(1) does not require to be strictly indispensable: mere facilitation seems enough. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 1:00 pm
§§ 41–9–1 to 41–9–7. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 1:00 pm
§§ 41–9–1 to 41–9–7. [read post]
22 Apr 2017, 2:14 pm
In one of our previous posts (September 1, 2016), we discussed a recent decision of the Federal Supreme Court (judgment of June 21, 2016, docket no: X ZR 41/15) in this respect, essentially paving the way for letterbox NPEs but still leaving some questions unanswered. [read post]
21 Apr 2017, 8:03 am
How the new procedural rule will interact with core constitutional values and established legal principles, as well as what the practical consequences of the rule are, remain open questions. (1) Fourth Amendment The proposed changes may well fall afoul of the Fourth Amendment. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 4:05 pm
Comment Eagerly awaited by media lawyers, this decision does not provide the clarity on the recoverability of additional liabilities which might have been hoped. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 1:13 pm
As you may recall, the FTC is pursuing 1-800 Contacts for antitrust violations based on 1-800 Contacts having sued and then settled with competitors who bought keyword ads on 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 10:41 am
But if the search only violates Rule 41 but does not violate the Fourth Amendment, then in most jurisdictions it will be suppressed only in limited circumstances. [read post]
16 Apr 2017, 12:58 pm
Case of a Regulation that Does the Opposite of a Statute appeared first on Discourse.net. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 4:17 am
In relation to Nike Intl’s EP 1 571 938 "footwear incorporating a textile with fusible filaments and fibers" the German Federal Patent Court had previously declared that all claims invalid for lack of inventive step starting from the German published examined application ("Auslegeschrift") DE 1 085 173 of 1954 in combination with US 2,440,393 of 1948. [read post]
12 Apr 2017, 6:00 am
Unlike Beard, Klarman does not focus only on the Framers, and he avoids Beard’s missteps. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 3:01 pm
The focus is on CSR (1) as a subject of legal regulation within states, (2) as a matter of international law and compliance beyond the state, and (3) as a tool and methodology for privatizing regulation through the enterprise itself operating in global production chains. [read post]
