This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor v. Murphy involves NewJersey and New York’s Waterfront Commission Compact. This congressionally approved interstate compact established a commission with licensing, regulatory and other powers to address corruption and racketeering in the Port of New York–NewJersey.
ten years ago—at least in part due to longstanding common law rules on champerty, maintenance, [3] and patent law’s relative high risk—today third-party litigation funding (TPLF) [4] undergirds about 30% of all patent litigation, by conservative estimates. [5] Patent assertion finance today is a multibillion-dollar business. [2]
NewJersey , [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Judicial factfinding for restitution Under Apprendi v. Relisted after the Jan. 10 conference.) Relisted after the Jan.
The court, which did not address the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding alleged inadequacies in the climate change-related analyses, found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or that they would suffer irreparable harm. Ministry of Economic Affairs (Taipei Administrative Court).
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content