Search for: "Harmon v. Givens" Results 121 - 140 of 514
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Dec 2009, 4:30 pm by Anita Krishnakumar
In one of the few decisions it has handed down thus far this term, Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 7:13 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Rigidity v. flexibility: advocates for more specific defenses. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 1:56 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Bone: push the proposal further: registrations are given for a specific purpose. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 4:51 am
 In light of previous EU harmonization efforts, but also difficulties lamented by relevant stakeholders [see here], the latter appears to be the preferable answer [for those interested, I discussed the shortcomings of the Enforcement Directive, especially in relation to the issue of costs, more at length here]. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 5:31 am by Jim Dempsey
They were bolstered in that position by the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in West Virginia v. [read post]
20 Aug 2023, 5:20 am by Eleonora Rosati
As IPKat readers are surely aware, his fame extends well beyond the art world, given that Koons has contributed as litigant to some of the most interesting copyright case law around the world [see, eg, IPKat coverage here].A few days ago, it was the turn of the Italian Supreme Court to rule (decision 23935/2023 Koons v Garrone) in a case involving him and a copy of an artwork – specifically: a porcelain sculpture titled The Serpents – that he has refused to acknowledge… [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 7:11 am by John Jascob
Regarding proposed Reg BI, SIFMA recommended that the definition of “retail customer” be harmonized with FINRA’s definition because the definition as proposed would result in inconsistent and redundant compliance structures.SIFMA also urged the SEC to incorporate the “reasonable investor” definition of materiality set forth in Basic v. [read post]
11 Sep 2014, 1:22 pm by Larry
Like the court in GRK, Customs and Border Protection looked back to an old case call United States v. [read post]