Search for: "People v. Bell (1996)"
Results 21 - 40
of 104
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Nov 2016, 7:18 am
In that case, a Taco Bell employee spit in a trooper’s food, and the trooper sued. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 11:46 am
Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 8:11 am
United States Brass Corp., a 1996 case. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 9:34 am
Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 262, 264 (9th Cir. 1996), and paraphrased by the U.S. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 12:57 pm
Belle Ctr. v. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 12:57 pm
Belle Ctr. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 8:11 am
See Creazzo v. [read post]
14 Apr 2019, 1:59 pm
Bell Canada, 2010 FCA 139 at paras. 20 and 26, a case which I argued. [read post]
29 Jul 2006, 4:36 am
Ct. 1996). [read post]
14 Dec 2022, 7:28 am
There were two aspects of that case that set off alarm bells. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 4:08 pm
” [18] Overall, seasonal trends show a notable peak in total Listeria cases and related-deaths from July through October. [3] Ingested by mouth, Listeria is among the most virulent foodborne pathogens, with up to 20% of clinical infections resulting in death. [3] These bacteria primarily cause severe illness and death in persons with immature or compromised immune systems. [13, 18] Consequently, most healthy adults can be exposed to Listeria with little to any risk of infection and illness.… [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
While Kirtsaeng involves textbooks, one of the traditionally copyright protected works, other cases, including the two previous cases involving these provisions to reach the Supreme Court (Costco v Omega and Quality King v L’anza Research), involve consumer goods, goods that we don’t typically think of as within the subject matter of copyright. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
While Kirtsaeng involves textbooks, one of the traditionally copyright protected works, other cases, including the two previous cases involving these provisions to reach the Supreme Court (Costco v Omega and Quality King v L’anza Research), involve consumer goods, goods that we don’t typically think of as within the subject matter of copyright. [read post]
22 Jun 2014, 5:31 pm
The Federal Court, in the decision in Henry v Bell Mobility 2014 FC 555 has awarded a very modest sum of damages to a customer of Bell Mobility whose phone account was accessed by an impostor. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 8:34 am
But in Yick Wo v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 2:15 pm
Pacific Bell (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1225, 1240, 244 Cal.Rptr. 714 (Colich ); Kearl v. [read post]
19 Feb 2023, 11:51 am
Gonzalez v. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 4:16 am
” At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, Bernard Bell offers the last in a series of posts on Food Marketing Institute v. [read post]
19 Nov 2021, 4:45 pm
” Bell v. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 5:00 pm
If yes, the law is little changed as a practical matter, and the same people will be convicted, by and large. [read post]
