Search for: "R. B."
Results 1 - 20
of 56,210
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jun 2024, 6:31 am
Posted by Arthur B. [read post]
15 Jun 2024, 6:31 am
Posted by Arthur B. [read post]
14 Jun 2024, 3:38 pm
They're anticipated to ask for attorney's fees of $6 billion -- that's billion, with a b.) [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 4:31 pm
Krishnakumar (92 George Washington Law Review) The Unenumerated Power by Caitlin B. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 12:43 pm
Comm’r, T.C. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 11:04 am
Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Todd Young (R-IN) to enhance U.S. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 10:29 am
The R&R states that even on a liberal reading of the RFA, Dr. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 1:48 pm
R. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 1:06 pm
For this past month, the three most-consulted English-language decisions were: R. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 1:45 am
» Básicamente el modelo giraba en azuzar judicialmente a la Administración para actuar cuando existiere una fuente jurídica clara de obligación (disposición directa, o acto administrativo) y que la obligación fuese determinada respecto de personas también determinadas. [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 3:56 pm
Judge Richard R. [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 10:21 am
Mike DeWine (R) issued an executive order reclassifying nine synthetic opioids as Schedule I drugs, effectively banning them in the state. [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 5:59 am
(§54.01(r), (h), F.C.) [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 5:59 am
(§54.01(r), (h), F.C.) [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 5:59 am
(§54.01(r), (h), F.C.) [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 1:42 am
First, the Court addressed the second plea, alleging infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 11:28 am
However, the Federal Circuit disagreed, reasoning that “[r]equiring a terminal to take responsive action differs meaningfully from requiring either the terminal or the portable device to take responsive action. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 11:22 am
Morris, Detective B. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 5:50 am
” Counterman was charged for this behavior under a Colorado statute that criminalized “[r]epeatedly … mak[ing] any form of communication with another person” in “a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person … to suffer serious emotional distress. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 5:33 am
This case highlighted the importance of considering the mark's content beyond its motion even if the movement as such is decisive for the classification of the type of mark:From cases such as Alkim, Prada, and Savencia it follows that only a mark, consisting of the appearance of the product itself, which significantly diverges from the norm or customs of the relevant sector and, therefore, is capable of fulfilling its original essential function, is not devoid of distinctive character within… [read post]
