Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Frazier v. Cupp (1969) - one person can give consent in case of joint custody; Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) - government must show that consent occurred; United States v. Watson (1976) - valid consent from person under arrest; United States v. Mendenhall (1980) - consent stop converted to Terry stop; South Dakota v.
The CASE Act, along with two other IP-related bills, were included as part of a omnibus spending and COVID-19 relief bill in December 2020, which was passed by Congress on December 21, 2020. [4] President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on December 27, 2020. [5]
This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file.
The 5–4 decision ruled that the CFPB structure, with a sole director that could only be terminated for cause, was unconstitutional as it violated the separation of powers. Specifically, the Court held that Article II of the Constitution gives the president the power to remove principal officers at will except for two exceptions recognized ...
%PDF-1.5 %âãÏÓ 191 0 obj > endobj xref 191 25 0000000016 00000 n 0000001437 00000 n 0000001560 00000 n 0000001882 00000 n 0000002862 00000 n 0000003042 00000 n 0000003184 00000 n 0000003359 00000 n 0000003594 00000 n 0000004073 00000 n 0000004242 00000 n 0000081823 00000 n 0000082060 00000 n 0000082215 00000 n 0000107550 00000 n 0000107790 00000 n 0000108080 00000 n 0000142116 00000 n ...
United States v. Google Inc., No. 3:12-cv-04177 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2012), is a case in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a stipulated order for a permanent injunction and a $22.5 million civil penalty judgment, the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has ever won in history. [1]
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]
Although HL was in fact released back into the care of Mr. and Mrs. E in December 1997 after being held in hospital for five months, the case was pursued at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for a declaration that HL had been deprived of his liberty unlawfully in the meaning of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights ('the ...