Search for: "WILLING v. U S" Results 1 - 20 of 697
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Dec 2024, 4:22 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Burt v Jerez (2024 NY Slip Op 51613(U) [Sup Ct, Albany County Nov. 20, 2024]), is a fascinating example of how commercial judges resolve sharply conflicting factual accounts in injunction motion papers. [read post]
13 Nov 2024, 9:01 pm by eorozco
Willful violations can result in criminal penalties of up to $1,000,000 or imprisonment of up to 20 years, or both. [read post]
10 Nov 2024, 6:00 am by Lawrence Solum
 For simplicity's sake, we will focus on three of these. [read post]
Thus, for the EPO’s Legal Division, following the rationale of T 56/21 would certainly mean a complete U-turn. [read post]
30 Sep 2024, 9:55 am by Joel R. Brandes
Where the court made no such finding here, and instead, improperly delegated the parenting time determination to the father, the error required reversalIn Matter of C.M. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2024, 9:36 am by fjhinojosa
Beck gave a CLE presentation to the Lubbock Area Bar Association titled “United States v. [read post]
6 Aug 2024, 6:10 am by Norman L. Eisen
First, she asked, “Petitioner turned to a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results. [read post]
4 Aug 2024, 4:03 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
  The IPKat team wishes the new IP Minister a productive, informative and long tenure in the role.European Commission's written intervention in HMD dispute reinforces Huawei v ZTE criteria in GermanyBack in April, the European Commission submitted written observations as an amicus curiae in the VoiceAge EVS v HMD Global dispute which is pending before the Munich Higher Regional Court (6 U 3824/22). [read post]
8 Jul 2024, 4:54 am by Peter J. Sluka
  Valuing a firm’s interest in contingency-fee cases has spawned years of dispute in Capizzi v Brown Chiari (discussed here). [read post]
24 Jun 2024, 10:26 am by Dennis Crouch
The Fourth Circuit decision here splits from the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, which have required veil piercing to impose liability on affiliates for Lanham Act violations in U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]