Search for: "RIDER v. STATE" Results 61 - 80 of 797
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2008, 1:15 pm
The case out of California, Marketing Information Masters v. the Board of Trustees of California State University reaches a rather predictable result in dismissing an allegation of copyright infringement on the grounds that states and state institutions are immune from lawsuits by private individuals and corporations. [read post]
25 Feb 2017, 12:09 pm by Michael Rosenblat
Back in 1995 the United States Postal Service (USPS) sponsored the cycling team headed by Lance Armstrong, its top rider. [read post]
25 Feb 2017, 12:09 pm by Michael Rosenblat
Back in 1995, the United States Postal Service (USPS) sponsored the cycling team headed by Lance Armstrong, its top rider. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 4:47 pm
The contract contained a rider with an "attorney approval contingency" stating as follows: "This Contract is contingent upon approval by attorneys for Seller and Purchaser by the third business day following each party's attorney's receipt of a copy of the fully executed Contract (the "Approval Period"). . . . [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 9:30 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
  However, the case that controls whether a state could require side guards would probably be Bibb v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 1:50 am by CMS
The Supreme Court stated that the CAC had rigorously scrutinised the substance of the relationship between Deliveroo and the Riders. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 10:11 am by Brendan Kevenides
 In so doing, the court admitting that it was disagreeing with another federal district court in that state, Cordy v. [read post]
20 Jul 2019, 7:03 am by Larry
" Chapter 94, Note 1(h) states that "This Chapter does not cover . . . [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 10:34 am
Their Get Educated and Ride Safe (GEARS) V grant is aimed at decreasing the number of motorcycle crashes and victims in California. [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 9:09 am by George Basharis
Case date: 20 September 2019 Case number: No. 18-2388 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]