Search for: "United States v. Constantine" Results 1 - 20 of 39
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jul 2018, 3:13 pm by luiza
By the C|C Whistleblower Lawyer Team Constantine Cannon is proud to have partnered with AARP Foundation to represent AARP, AARP Foundation, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Justice in Aging, the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, and the National Health Law Program, as amici curiae in the whistleblower-initiated case of United States ex rel. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 12:37 pm by Danny Jacobs
It turns out in 1923 he made a bronze scuplture, “Bird in Space,” that he shipped to the United States in 1927. [read post]
11 Oct 2007, 2:37 am
In light of the history of lynching in the United States, the message of a noose under these circumstances is not merely abstract advocacy of racism or some related ideology. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 4:38 pm by INFORRM
On 2 July 2019, Advocate General (AG) Bobek delivered his opinion in Case C-240/18 P Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), advising that the EUIPO’s decision to reject the registration of the trade mark ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ because it was too offensive should be annulled. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 6:01 am by David G. Badertscher
DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCivil Practice Government Allowed Discovery in CWA Case; No Prior Formal Discovery Under FRCP 26 United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 6:12 am by SHG
United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272 (2016) • M. [read post]
5 May 2009, 1:38 am
Shinder, a partner of the firm, write that although certain aspects of the Second Circuit's 1945 decision in United States v. [read post]
25 Sep 2010, 9:16 am by Dave
In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by Article 8 (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, § 76, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27138/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I; and Connors, cited above, §§ 83 and 92) 68.   [read post]