Search results for: "2000" (1874 results)
vigorously pursued the issue in two rulemaking processes in 1999 and 2000. See Revision of the Commission’s Auditor Independence Requirements, 65
computer software industry context, see infra Section IV.C. 40. 1 ROGER M. MILGRIM, MILGRIM ON TRADE SECRETS § 1.05[5], at 1-250 (2000). In U.S. patent
2000). 2. Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062 (D.C. Cir. 2003); GDF Realty Invs., Ltd. v. Norton, 326 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 2003). 3. The toads
the metaphor. 5. 461 U.S. 95 (1983). 6. 528 U.S. 167 (2000). 7. 306 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2002). 8. E.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S
1242 (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904 (2000)). 6. 21 U.S.C. § 823(f) (2000). 7. OR. REV. STAT. § 127.815 (2005). ESKRIDGE_09-12-06_BIG
Miles, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2002). In 2000, Congress enacted the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act,1 which requires convicted sex
Reform, and Telecommunications Regulation, 42 B.C. L. REV. 1, 3 (2000). A related argument is that the First Amendment is mostly concerned with specific
Appraising and Appreciating Apprendi, 12 Fed. Sent’g Rep. 303, 303 (2000) (“Apprendi is indisputably a significant decision for modern sentencing reforms
reported). 15. FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES 1999, at 6 (2000) (finding a twenty-one percent clearance
those offered by some feminists. See, e.g., Sally F. Goldfarb, Violence Against Women and the Persistence of Privacy, 61 OHIO ST. L.J. 1 (2000). 3