Search for: "People v. Perez (1985)" Results 1 - 20 of 25
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Sep 2023, 6:36 am by cassieq
Tom Perez: Senior Advisor to President Joe Biden (1961-present) “To me, the meaning of Hispanic Heritage Month is for people across the country to come together to celebrate how far we have come to support Latino families, while recognizing how far we still must go. [read post]
24 May 2023, 6:37 am by Paula Junghans
DA Office: “[T]he People further refer defendant to certain facts, among others, set forth in the Statement of Facts relating to … disguising reimbursement payments by doubling them and falsely characterizing them as income for tax reasons Court filing in response to defendant’s request for bill of particulars. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
 A warning about an inherent risk – a so-called “risk warning” – serves an entirely different purpose.With inherent risks, people are warned so they can decide whether that risk outweighs the benefits that might be gained from using the product. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
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 by Terry Hart
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]
25 May 2012, 12:05 am by Ken
Sarmiento-Perez, 724 F.2d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1984). [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm by Bexis
Squibb & Sons, Inc., 710 P.2d 247, 250-53 (Cal. 1985), the California Supreme Court exempted pharmacists from duty to warn liability, but without specifically mentioning the rule. [read post]