Search for: "EDDY v. STATE et al" Results 1 - 20 of 35
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Mar 2023, 12:30 pm by Avery Schmitz
Department of State; and Shaikh Abdullah bin Rashid Al Khalifa, ambassador of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the United States. [read post]
24 Jun 2020, 4:15 am by C. Dale Quisenberry
Jerry Seinfeld et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 18-cv-01196. [read post]
4 Jan 2019, 4:34 pm by INFORRM
” In England and Wales, Canada and New Zealand, Rush et al would be met with a tough hurdle – a defence of responsible public interest journalism, whereby even if the story contains errors of fact it would be defensible if the journalism was conducted responsibly and the information was in the public interest. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am by Ben
Well Marie-Andree cited that 1879 case  Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am by Ben
Judge McMahon did, however, agree with the New York-based satellite radio company that Flo & Eddie could recover damages for copyright infringement only for the three years before it sued on Aug. 16, 2013, not six years as she had previously suggested. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 3:49 am by Ben
 As it currently stands, the 2nd Circuit will be reviewing the New York judge's decision with the California case awaiting a result, too.More here http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/1972-and-all-that-but-does-turtles-win.html and here http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/turtles-probe-murky-soup-of-pre-1972-us.html and here Flo & Eddie, Inc., v Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al    UNITED STATES… [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 1:08 pm by Lucie Olejnikova
Team Members: Joseph Fortunato (3L), Sameer Ponkshe (3L) In this year’s competition titled United States v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 3:55 am by Ben
Those pesky TurtlesIt seems SiriusXM has decided to rely on the 1940 case of  RCA v Whiteman et al to persuade  U.S. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 5:38 am by Ben
Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al in the United States District Court, Central District of California [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 5:30 am
Eddie Lee Howard et. al., decided November 26, 2012, which deals with two employees desperately attempting to circumvent that pesky arbitration clause in their covenant not to compete agreement with the employer. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 4:48 pm by Victoria VanBuren
Eddie Lee Howard, et al, 568 U.S. ___ (Nov. 26, 2012), a dispute arose between Nitro-Lift Technologies (“Nitro-Lift”) and two of its former employees, Eddie Lee Howard and Shane D. [read post]