Search for: "Arnold v. State" Results 221 - 240 of 1,496
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Feb 2020, 12:41 pm by Donald Thompson
We should respond that these questions address the ability of a potential juror to be fair and impartial, an area of inquiry in which a trial court is more apt to commit error (see CPL § 270.20[1][b]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358 [2001]; People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600 [2000]; People v Lewis, 71 AD3d 1582 [4th Dept 2010]; People v Habte, 35 AD3d 1199 [4th  Dept 2006]). [read post]
2 Feb 2020, 11:28 pm
Last week, this Kat published a post on the issue of trade mark registrations suffering from a lack of clarity [here] following the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)'s decision in C-371/18 Sky v. [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 3:31 am
It just a few months ago that this blog reported on the Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev in the Sky v SkyKick, C-371/18 case.important A referral from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales made by Arnold J (as he then was), the Sky case is probably the most important referral in the EU trade mark field made over the past few years. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 9:07 am by John Elwood
And a case involving foreign official immunity that requires a [Disclosure: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioners in this case.] [read post]
10 Jan 2020, 12:25 am
In light of this, (and further to the 18 points on the state of communication to the public set out by Arnold J in Paramount v BSkyB at 12) Mr Justice Birss thus sewed summised the following 8 factors from the rich tapestry of the communication to the public case law:Assessment of communication to the public is an individualised and case specific assessment which must be carried out as a whole.Providing a link to a work is capable of being an act of communication to the… [read post]
10 Jan 2020, 12:24 am
Further, as Arnold J set out in EMI Records v British Sky Broadcasting [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch) proportionality and fair balance with fundamental rights must also be taken into account.The claimants sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their copyright, but without defining their repertoire.Birss aligned this case with those cases brought by collecting societies such as PPL and PRS against defendants such as retailers and public house owners who do not have a… [read post]
28 Dec 2019, 9:51 pm by Guest
By 1941, the pro-New Deal Court took this line, saying in United States v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 9:41 am
 This morning the Court of Appeal ([2019] EWCA Civ 2272) dismissed Gilead's appeal of Mr Justice Arnold's (as he then was) September 2018 decision in Teva v Gilead finding that Gilead's SPC protecting its combination HIV anti-retroviral drug, Truvada, was invalid. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 4:04 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse suggests that Monday’s oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 1:10 pm by sydniemery
Arnold Loewy and Charles Moster, It’s debatable: Should companies be held liable for actions generations later? [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 3:56 am by Edith Roberts
Investment Policy Committee v. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 3:39 am by Edith Roberts
First up is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2019, 1:25 pm by Giles Peaker
Indeed, I consider that this is what the agreement clearly states. [read post]
29 Nov 2019, 4:07 am by Edith Roberts
Briefly: At Reuters, Andrew Chung talks to one of the plaintiffs in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]