Search for: "State v. Rome"
Results 221 - 240
of 702
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jan 2016, 7:12 am
Alex Loomis walked us through the Department of Justice’s amicus brief in Weinstein v. [read post]
16 Feb 2022, 4:03 am
Jacobs v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 8:33 am
They said much the same for use of a trade mark in L’Oreal v eBay. [read post]
22 Mar 2023, 1:09 pm
With this Kat’s feed being flooded with the news of the ruling in “Pecorino Romano” v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 6:19 am
Supreme Court indicated in Connick v Myers, 461 US 138, constitutional free speech rights are not implicated when only matters of a personal interest to the individual, in contrast to matters of public concern, are involved.. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 10:52 am
Q. 375 Tanya Monestier, “Lepine v. [read post]
26 May 2021, 4:09 pm
Ct. 1659 (2013), as well as Lubbe v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 8:27 pm
In Mercredi v. [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 12:53 pm
As to the law, Article 8 of the Rome II Regulation states that the law of the country for which protection is claimed will be applicable. [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 11:52 pm
Symeonides, Dean of the College of Law at...Article on Rome II - Liability for Cross-Border Torts A very interesting article on Rome II written in German... [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 4:00 am
In a recent case called Regnier v. [read post]
17 May 2015, 2:57 am
Siehr recalled the landmark cases of Attorney-General of New Zealand v Ortiz, [1984] AC 1, Winkworth v. [read post]
13 Nov 2016, 6:13 am
Also at Public Books is a review of Benjamin Peters' How Not to Network a Nation: The Uneasy History of the Soviet Internet.A Fiery and Furious People: a History of Violence in England by James Sharpe is reviewed in The Times Literary Supplement and the New Statesman.Mary Beard discusses her SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome in the Los Angeles Review of Books.Cornelia Hughes Dayton and Sharon V. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 9:30 am
The problem stems from an overbroad and poorly monitored federal regulation, upheld by the US Supreme Court in Thornburgh v. [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 8:44 am
Doe v. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 1:52 am
In particular, the article discusses possible restrictions of the right to choose between the law of the state in which the damage occurred and the law of the state in which the event giving rise to the damage took place (Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ia Regulation and Art. 7 Rome II Regulation). [read post]
31 Aug 2016, 8:36 pm
Art. 13 of the Regulation applies in the case of the scission of the estate even if only a part of the estate is located in a Member State and the declaration at hand does not concern this part. [read post]
16 Jul 2007, 6:24 am
In 1895, the United States Supreme Court decided Coffin v. [read post]
13 Jun 2007, 1:24 am
Rome Fastener Corp. [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 6:31 am
The first is Klayman v. [read post]
