Search for: "Nathan Smith v. US" Results 41 - 60 of 120
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Judge Federman's In re Nathan Smith opinion argues that the legislature enacted specific exemption laws for other pension plans but the teacher pension at issue did not use the magic word "exempt. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 3:55 am by Ben
” The Court’s answer to this was in the negative” and the court added “Get a license or do not sample – we do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way” although that decision can istelf be contrasted by US District Judge Alison Nathan's more recent decision in the Tuf America v Beastie Boys case in 2013 . [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 12:16 pm by Eugene Volokh
(the link is to the decision that is being appealed), and my students Nathan Davis, Sara Liss, and Paulette Rodriguez-Lopez worked on the brief. [read post]
21 Oct 2018, 4:59 pm by INFORRM
The libel trial in the case of Doyle v Smith was heard by Warby J on 15 to 17 October 2018 and was adjourned part heard. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
Neither, says the judge in patent and trade mark case Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK; Schutz UK Ltd, Schutz GmbH & Co KgAA v Delta Containers Ltd (PatLit) EWHC: RIM v Visto: Mr Justice Arnold takes charge (PatLit) Banking brand values plummet (IAM)   United States   US General  Judd Gregg to be nominated as Secretary of Commerce (Inventive Step) (IP Watchdog) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) (Chicago Intellectual… [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 7:09 am by James Bickford
Bollinger and Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 4:13 pm by Lyle Denniston
Two years after the Katz decision, in the case of Smith v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
I want to select the means of advertising my music.5 Copyright and Derivative Arguments was originally posted on Copyhype FootnotesWhite-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2017, 9:02 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Judge Brinkema rightly rejected this argument, citing the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in McCreary County v. [read post]