Search for: "ROGERS v. UNITED STATES"
Results 221 - 240
of 1,517
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2022, 6:30 am
As Locke v. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 11:39 am
Apple has very high shares in the smartphone, tablet, or smart watch markets in the United States, the geography the lawsuit focuses on, and does not allow other payment apps (particularly "wallet" apps) to use the iPhone's NFC chip. [read post]
17 Jul 2022, 6:53 am
First, in United States v. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 6:10 pm
And finally, we have a revised opinion in United States v. [read post]
3 Jul 2022, 7:15 am
Supreme Court overturned Roe v. [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 3:21 pm
See Rogers v. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 7:13 am
For example, he raises and explains the problem encountered for causal inference by small relative risks: “Small relative risks of the order of 2:1 or even less are what are likely to be observed, like the risk now recorded for childhood leukemia and exposure to magnetic fields of 0.4 µT or more (Ahlbom et al. 2000) that are seldom encountered in the United Kingdom. [read post]
20 Jun 2022, 3:23 pm
Circuit, about which the NYT writes: At least two climate cases are pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. [read post]
12 Jun 2022, 11:57 am
United States, 883 F.2d 93, 97 (D.C. [read post]
9 Jun 2022, 1:29 pm
Representatives Frank Pallone, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and Senator Roger Wicker released a “discussion draft” of a federal data privacy bill entitled the “American Data Privacy and Protection Act” (the “Draft Bill”), which would impact the data privacy and cybersecurity practices of virtually every business and not-for-profit organization in the United States. [read post]
28 May 2022, 12:02 pm
Finally, in Ross v. [read post]
25 May 2022, 7:10 pm
If true, the United States would have surely noted this risk in its amicus brief. [read post]
25 May 2022, 8:40 am
United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943) and Yasui v. [read post]
20 May 2022, 2:29 pm
In Lehman v. [read post]
20 May 2022, 2:13 am
Google described it as a mere clarification, though I would agree with Epic and others that in reality it constituted a policy change, an about-face.By "[f]or the time being" I meant that this is just temporary, like a moratorium:At the very latest, this agreement terminates when the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has entered final judgment in, or otherwise disposed of, Epic Games v. [read post]
18 May 2022, 5:11 pm
From Hermes Int'l v. [read post]
16 May 2022, 8:34 am
Customs and Border Protection, blood plasma companies challenged an alleged change in CBP policy that resulted in Mexican plasma donors being denied entrance to the United States using B-1 business visitor visas. [read post]
14 May 2022, 1:51 am
Techs., LLC v. [read post]
7 May 2022, 12:51 pm
United States 21-1352Issue: Whether plain-error review governs claims on appeal of error under Rogers v. [read post]
6 May 2022, 5:50 pm
Cook v. [read post]
