Search for: "Evans v. No Named Respondents" Results 1 - 20 of 212
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Apr 2023, 3:46 am
Evans Mktg., Inc., 183 USPQ 613, 614 (Comm’r Pats. 1974) (finding applicant’s name may be corrected where application was mistakenly filed in name of fictitious and non-existent party). [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 3:35 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
The Respondent issued proceedings to quash the certificate and the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal on the grounds that the Attorney General’s reasons were not capable of constituting “reasonable grounds” and the certificate was incompatible with the Council Directive 2003/4/EC. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 5:53 am by Eugene Volokh
Through other public records information, and legal journalistic methods and deduction, the full names of both deputies were gleaned by the Respondents…. [read post]
19 Mar 2023, 2:34 am by Afro Leo
Logic Africa responded sometime later by taking down its website and opposing the applicant on the basis that a reputation could not be shown in the name and the no confusion was likely. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 8:08 am by Kate Fort
Intervenor: Zachary Evan Pelham Respondent: Stephen John Behm Issues: Respondent’s Statement of the Issues: Fighting Sioux Ballet Measurers Issues: 1. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 7:47 am by MBettman
At Oral Argument What Was On Their Minds What Actually Happened When Petitioners notified the police, they didn’t name Respondents by name, because they don’t know them, commented Chief Justice O’Connor. [read post]
23 Aug 2020, 6:09 pm by Evan Brown
 Read Evan’s other blog, UDRP Tracker, for information about domain name disputes. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 7:30 am by JONATHAN DAVIES AND ELLIOT GOLD
That said, even if the primary respondent is the chief constable, it may still be possible for a claimant to name the individual members of the misconduct hearing panel as individual respondents in their own right. [read post]
18 Sep 2011, 10:40 am by Howard Friedman
The court ordered defendants to respond as to exhaustion on one plaintiff's claims.In Parks v. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 3:00 am by Gmlevine
He noted that Respondent in the earlier proceeding had been given the “benefit of the doubt. [read post]