Search for: "In re Belt, Petitioner" Results 1 - 20 of 20
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Aug 2020, 2:05 pm by SCOTUStalk
And you can think about that as you frame your arguments, as you draft your briefs, when you’re reading the precedents and you’re looking back at old arguments about what the justices are concerned about and who’s concerned about what and when you’re trying to count to five, which is what you’re trying to do in the Supreme Court. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 4:13 am
Sunbio Corporation, Cancellation No. 92067124 [Petition for cancellation of a registration for the mark B-7 for dietary and nutritional supplements, on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with petitioner's identical mark for identical goods, deceptiveness (Section 2(a)), misrepresentation of source (Section 14(3)), fraud, nonuse, and abandonment]. [read post]
20 Jan 2019, 11:43 pm
Argued October 3, 2018—Decided January 15, 2019 Petitioner New Prime Inc. is an interstate trucking company, and respondent Dominic Oliveira is one of its drivers. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 8:43 pm by Ronald Mann
Echoing the analysis of the U.S. solicitor general, Kagan suggested that it made more sense to regard the provisions as overlapping, in what she described as a “belt-and-suspenders approach where … we’re going to find every possible way to say this thing in order to make sure that fraudulent acts are covered. [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 6:30 am by Lucia Veglia
Some I-512 forms are issued to allow for multiple re-entries into the U.S. while others are issued for only one single re-entry. [read post]
31 Mar 2018, 8:56 am by Thorsten Bausch
Don’t tell me this is all to protect the EPO against terrorists – it is a laughable proposition that the current “security checks” might intimidate, let alone stop a bunch of terrorists with machine guns or explosive belts. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 11:51 am by Mark Walsh
“Several teachers submitted letters attesting to [petitioner’s] character. [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 10:33 am by John Elwood
They’re on the docket for me and you. [read post]
3 May 2014, 8:56 am by Schachtman
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co., 461 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 2006) (affirming summary judgment in disparate treatment discharge case, and noting judicial tendency to require “comparability” between plaintiffs and comparison group as a “natural response to cherry-picking by plaintiffs”); Miller v. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 6:07 am by John Elwood
  (If you are already outraged because the Chief Magistrate’s middle name actually contains an “e,” fasten your seat belt: we have more name-vowel weirdness coming before we’re through.) [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 2:20 pm by Law Lady
BURNETTE, Appellees. 2nd District.Creditors' rights -- Postjudgment discovery in aid of execution of judgment -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by permitting discovery in aid of execution of a final summary judgment which was void -- Summary judgment was null and void where trial court entered it while appeal of a nonfinal order was pendingLORI GIBSON; LESLIE BETTS; MARC BETTS; and LYDIA SIERRA, Petitioners, v. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 11:48 am by John L. Welch
Decision as PrecedentialPrededential No. 34: TTAB Affirms Refusal to Register "Beer Glass and Stand" Packaging for Lack of Distinctiveness Fraud: Precedential No. 36: TTAB Refuses to Find Fraudulent Intent Where Applicant Relied on Advice of CounselPrecedential No. 16: Fraud Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss; Facts Pleaded with Sufficient ParticularityPrecedential No. 2: TTAB Okays Fraud Pleading But Denies Summary Judgment on Intent Issue Genericness: Precedential No. 45: TTAB Finds "NANDRIVE"… [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm by Law Lady
Medical Device: MEDICAL DEVICE SUPPLIER ISN'T 'HEALTH CARE PROVIDER', Orthopedic Res. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:26 pm
Allen, No. 08–9156 In capital habeas proceedings, a court of appeals' reversal of a grant of petitioner's petition is affirmed where a state court's conclusion that defense counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue or present evidence of petitioner's mental deficiencies was not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. [read post]