Search for: "State v. Cochran" Results 121 - 140 of 346
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2016, 8:38 am by Douglas A. Plazak
  A relatively recent case that hasn’t garnered too much attention (Cochran v. [read post]
17 Apr 2016, 9:05 pm by Walter Olson
[Ira Stoll, more] “Returning to Common-Law Principles of Insider Trading After United States v. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 6:41 am
P. 12(b)(6) (stating that a complaint may be dismissed for `failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted’). [read post]
3 Apr 2016, 7:01 pm
 James highlighted the case of DuPont v Kolon - which concerned the Kevlar trade secrets (read about the case here in the testimony from Karen Cochran) - and recent cases concerning Chinese espionage (US v Xu and Zi, US v Xi and US v Chen) as examples of criminal trade secrets prosecution. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
 There were also important decisions from the long dormant Investigatory Powers Tribunal which at least chipped away at the edges of state surveillance. [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 7:37 am
  Answering one of the first questions about the importance of trade secrets, Cochran stated that trade secrets have always been important to her industry and to DuPont. [read post]
26 May 2015, 6:40 pm
A Daubert motion is the outcome of a 1993 Supreme Court case, Daubert v. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 10:55 am by SueLyn Athey
Falls Homeowners Association, Inc., 441 Md. 290, 107 A.3d 1183 (Md. 2015). [2] Cochran v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 7:11 am
 Further, where the letter of intent is unambiguous and constitutes an enforceable contract, it is unnecessary to have a plenary hearing on the merits of a motion to enforce a settlement agreementFacts: The appeal arose out of the execution of a letter of intent which was the result of the settlement of litigation over the contested ownership of parking spaces.Analysis:  Distinguishing Cochran v Norkunas, which held that the parties did not intend to be bound by… [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 6:00 am by Administrator
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that “[t]he Charter does not confer a freestanding constitutional right to health care. [read post]