Search for: "Sage v. State" Results 181 - 200 of 310
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jul 2012, 1:01 pm by Eoin Daly
It affirms the state must protect the institution of marriage, and that the family is founded upon marriage, but does not define the term. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 6:37 am by Sean Patrick Donlan
[v] This reduced perception of legal transplant, in fact, can fit into a global order based on nation states and international organizations, but it cannot be adapted to the current post-modern scenario where global, national and local orders interact with each other, cultural distinctions are becoming blurred, where private is occupying the space once occupied by the public, and where transnational enterprises (TNEs) cut across continents with little geographical attachment. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 11:36 am by Matthew Nelson
Recent transcripts reveal that 7th Circuit Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan has urged the parties in Kleen Products, LLC, et. al. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2012, 11:50 pm
  There was a case in 1996, (Princeton University Press v. [read post]
24 May 2012, 11:19 am by Marty Schwimmer
Cambridge University Press v Becker (ND. [read post]
23 May 2012, 4:00 pm by John Elwood
Next up is yet another state-on-top habeas case, Howes v. [read post]
21 May 2012, 9:00 pm
Washington claims Sage V Foods has a substantial connection to the state because we, on very rare occasions, cross its borders to do business. [read post]
15 May 2012, 2:09 pm by Ariel Katz
In April 2008, three publishers, Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications, and Oxford University Press, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Georgia State University, alleging that GSU infringed their copyrights by allowing professors to upload excerpts from books onto the university’s electronic reserve system (ERes). [read post]
15 May 2012, 11:10 am by Sheldon Toplitt
Georgia State University Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)In what may be a precedent-setting 350-page ruling in Cambridge University Press et al. v. [read post]