Search for: "People v. Box (1984)" Results 21 - 40 of 82
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Sep 2011, 8:41 am by Rick Hasen
Von Spakovsky’s source for this story is a 1984 Brooklyn grand jury report, and his abuse of this report is striking. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
 The Amarige Box Design is a two-dimensional artistic design, which is physically separable from the utilitarian aspects of Amarige perfume. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
 The Amarige Box Design is a two-dimensional artistic design, which is physically separable from the utilitarian aspects of Amarige perfume. [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 5:00 am
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 681 P.2d 1038, 1057-58 (Kan. 1984); Seley v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 12:15 pm by dirklasater
He's not just saying it would be a good idea to amend the law so there are penalties for copyfraud — many people say that. [read post]
13 May 2015, 4:37 am
Lord Neuberger reviewed a long list of authorities of the House of Lords, the Privy Council and that of the Court of Appeal in Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar NP [1984] FSR 413, 462. [read post]
21 Dec 2007, 7:39 am
In fact, 65% of the people UCP affiliates serve have a disability other than cerebral palsy. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 9:30 am by Howard Knopf
This was set forth in the landmark 1984 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Universal v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 1:09 pm by Michael Froomkin
It’s the sort of thinking out of the box that elevates a candidate above the pack. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  The 1882 law also required voters to cast separate ballots for each race (the so called “multiple box” law); ballots placed in the wrong boxes were discarded, effectively disenfranchising many eligible voters. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
 Millions more use drugs and medical devices even though they carry the FDA’s strongest “black box” warnings. [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 8:04 am by Ben
However the key difference is that this is a customer's box - allowing customers to record programmes where they already had free access, and to play those recordings back to themselves - rather like a video recorder - and that of course reminds us of of that classic 1984 (split 5-4) Supreme Court decision in Sony v. [read post]