Search for: "IN RE A E GRAHAM MINOR" Results 1 - 20 of 27
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Mar 2020, 9:55 am by Jonathan Holbrook
The court noted that “we believe the Supreme Court should review this line of cases,” but “as an intermediate appellate court […w]e are bound by both our own precedent and the Supreme Court’s, and thus constrained to find error. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 1:24 pm by Bill Campbell
“One look at their marketing materials demonstrates just how egregious their sales tactics are – with flavors like cotton candy, gummy bear, unicorn, and graham cracker, they’re clearly targeting young people. [read post]
3 Feb 2019, 4:51 pm by INFORRM
  The judge in the case of “In re Yahoo! [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 6:10 am
Traders, Liability standards, Rule 10b-5, SEC, Section 10(b), Securities fraud, Securities regulation, Supreme Court, U.S. federal courts Review of Shareholder Activism: 1H 2018 Posted by Jim Rossman, Chris Couvelier and Kashyap Shah, Lazard, on Monday, July 30, 2018 Tags: Boards of Directors, Engagement, Europe, International governance, Mergers & acquisitions, Shareholder activism, Shareholder… [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 5:21 am by Andrew Hamm
” For E&E News, Ellen M. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am by Ben
 Elsewhere, the Court of Justice of the European Union has defined, re-defined and refined its own and (perhaps) our understanding of what the right of 'communication to the public' under Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive actually is. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 2:59 am by INFORRM
Equustek claimed that for many years Datalink had been re-labelling one of Equustek’s products and passing it off as Datalink’s own; that Datalink then acquired confidential information and misused it to design and manufacture a competing product; and that Datalink then passed off the competing product by supplying it in substitution for Equustek products advertised on its websites. [read post]
27 May 2017, 1:56 pm by Josh Blackman
They're gonna come in and we're gonna know where they came from and who they are. [read post]
9 May 2017, 7:19 am by John Elwood
§ 546(e) is properly construed to extend far beyond its text and impliedly pre-empt fraudulent-transfer actions brought by private parties (as opposed to the “trustee” expressly mentioned in the statute). [read post]
7 Jan 2017, 8:26 am by MBettman
”) In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) (“[N]either the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone. [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 8:23 am by MBettman
Supreme Court cases of Roper, Graham, and Miller to underscore the point that juveniles are to be treated differently from adults, and the reasons why. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 8:00 pm by John Ehrett
In re Sharp 15-646Issue: (1) Whether Johnson v. [read post]