Search for: "Parker v. Parker" Results 121 - 140 of 1,866
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Aug 2020, 11:41 am by Jonathan Bailey
One such case was the 2018 case Stevens v. [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 10:23 am by CrimProf BlogEditor
Brett Parker (Stanford University - Department of Political Science) has posted Is Death Different to Federal Judges? [read post]
2 Aug 2020, 4:58 am by Schachtman
Houghton Chemical Corp., 434 Mass. 624, 751 N.E.2d 848 (2001) (acetone and other chemicals in 55-gallon drums); Parker v. [read post]
31 Jul 2020, 12:38 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Endorsement by Monroe means something v. different from endorsement by ABG but courts have refused to distinguish those things. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 8:40 am by Eugene Volokh
Though Parker had been unable to make bail, McDowell had given Parker a bail-like release (something that a jailer was apparently allowed to do), but then threatened to revoke it if Parker voted for a candidate of whom McDowell disapproved. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 1:23 am by Jani Ihalainen
 The case of Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC concerned the movies ‘Parker’ and ‘Scary Movie 5 over which Constantin had the exclusive rights to. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 1:23 am by Jani Ihalainen
 The case of Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC concerned the movies ‘Parker’ and ‘Scary Movie 5 over which Constantin had the exclusive rights to. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 1:23 am by Jani Ihalainen
 The case of Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC concerned the movies ‘Parker’ and ‘Scary Movie 5 over which Constantin had the exclusive rights to. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 1:23 am by Jani Ihalainen
 The case of Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC concerned the movies ‘Parker’ and ‘Scary Movie 5 over which Constantin had the exclusive rights to. [read post]
12 Jul 2020, 8:27 am by Eleonora Rosati
This, in a nutshell, is the question which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had been required to answer in Constantin Film v YouTube, C-264/19.The referral, which Germany’s Federal Court of Justice had made, focused on the interpretation of Article 8(2)(a) of the Enforcement Directive, a piece of EU legislation adopted in 2004.The background national proceedings had originated from the refusal, by YouTube and its parent company Google, to provide film producer… [read post]