Search for: "Smith v. Urban" Results 61 - 80 of 192
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Feb 2016, 4:53 pm by Patricia Salkin
  The other milestone was the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, in which a DI test was adopted by administrative rule, upheld by a plurality in Smith v. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 9:49 pm by RegBlog
Smith announced that Philadelphia would be filing a motion to intervene as a defendant against twenty-four states that are challenging the U.S. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 12:36 pm
******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE Never too late 52 [week ending on Sunday 14 June] - EU TM reform | Motivate Publishing FZ LLC and another v Hello Ltd | EPO’s Inventor of the Year: poll results | New network for new IP people | Delfi v Estonia | UPC fees | Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc | Canary Wharf Group Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and… [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 3:10 pm
It's Canary Wharf Group Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2015] EWHC 1588 (Ch), an 8 June Chancery Division, England and Wales, decision of Iain Purvis QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court on an appeal from the UK Intellectual Property Office. [read post]
14 Jun 2015, 10:23 pm by Patricia Salkin
The property was located in a Shopping Center Regional (“SCR”) base zone and included an urban design overlay designated as the Green Hills Urban Design Overlay (“Green Hills UDO”). [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 4:18 am
  * Privacy in focus: urban life watching is art in New York StateValentina writes on Foster v Svenson, an Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court decision regarding people taking pictures of their neighbours. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 8:51 am by WIMS
 Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> Maple Drive Farms v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 2:03 pm by Lyle Denniston
”   Such language, it added, is absolutely essential, under the Smith v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 11:52 am by Joshua Thompson and Ralph Kasarda
If there was any doubt as to the meaning of “refuse” and “affect,” the Court erased it when it decided Smith v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 8:30 am by Joe Rich and Thomas Silverstein
Texas contends that the text of the Act must be read to prohibit only disparate treatment because of the Court’s decision in Smith v. [read post]