Search for: "Singh v. Holder" Results 41 - 60 of 76
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Feb 2011, 10:02 am by The Legal Blog
Justice Swatanter KumarThe Supreme Court in a recent decision, in Balwant Singh v. [read post]
30 Aug 2018, 8:03 am by Andrew Hamm
Holder, by Tejinder Singh, Goldstein & Russell, P.C. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 7:11 am by Ben
 Justice Manmohan Singh also held that the expression 'Pranic Healing' cannot be monopolised as trademark by the Institute. [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 3:49 pm by Kedar Bhatia
Holder 12-96Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to Representative F. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 4:46 am by Kedar Bhatia
Holder 12-96Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to Representative F. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 4:30 am by charonqc
Thankfully, while Tom Watson blocks libel reform on the grounds that Parliament needs more time (Infra), the Court of Appeal has stepped in to bring a degree of sanity into libel proceedings in BCA v Dr Singh. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 10:08 am by The Legal Blog
It is for the tenure holder/person interested to accept it or not. [read post]
13 Jun 2010, 9:40 pm by Adam Wagner
The most notorious example has been McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd, an unfair dismissal claim brought by a relationship counselor who as a result of his Christian beliefs refused to promote gay sex. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 11:38 am by Kedar Bhatia
Holder 12-96Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to Representative F. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 11:15 am by John Elwood
[Disclaimer: Tejinder Singh of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Christeson.] [read post]
25 Dec 2022, 2:14 am by Aaron L. Nielson
” The question before the Court boiled down to whether the patent holder had disclosed the invention before the filing date. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 8:08 pm
Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 582 (5th Cir. 2005); Stryker Corp. v. [read post]