Search for: "Campbell v. State" Results 221 - 240 of 2,232
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Apr 2021, 11:04 am by Kevin Kaufman
Table of Contents Key Findings Introduction Evaluating the Federal R&D ax Credit Effectiveness of the R&D Tax Credit — Does the R&D Credit Increase R&D Spending? [read post]
7 Apr 2021, 12:23 pm by Adam Faderewski
Campbell, 77, of Bulverde, died June 30, 2020. [read post]
28 Mar 2021, 7:30 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
In the 2011 securities decision, the Court stated, [61] While flexibility and cooperation are important to federalism, they cannot override or modify the separation of powers. [read post]
21 Mar 2021, 11:30 am by Eric Goldman
Reisch Another Politician Unconstitutionally Censored Constituents on Twitter–Campbell v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 10:44 pm by Josh Blackman
  Roberts included the same citation in his dissent from Campbell-Ewald Co. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 3:35 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Further, New York courts have held that a corporation’s attorney represents only the corporate entity, not its officers or directors (Campbell v McKeon, 75 AD3d 479, 480-481 [1st Dept 20 I OJ). [read post]
7 Mar 2021, 7:07 am by Joel R. Brandes
            In Matter of Austin ZZ v Aimee A, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2021 WL 624156, 2021 N.Y. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 5:01 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
An excerpt: When acting within its territorial boundaries and with respect to internal matters, an Indian Nation retains the sovereignty it enjoyed prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution except to the extent that its sovereignty has been abrogated or curtailed by Congress (see Montana v United States, 450 US 544, 564; United States v Kagama, 118 US 375, 381-382; Cayuga Nation v Campbell, 34 NY3d 282, 291,… [read post]
1 Mar 2021, 5:34 am by Ben Millson (Bristows)
Normal service looks to have been resumed following the Court of Appeal judgment in IPCom v Vodafone [2021] EWCA Civ 205, in which Arnold LJ reversed a first instance finding by Recorder Douglas Campbell QC that Vodafone was entitled to a defence of Crown use in respect of certain acts which infringed an IPCom patent, as well as providing some interesting commentary on the application of the de minimis infringement defence. [read post]