Search for: "Burrow v. State" Results 181 - 200 of 202
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Aug 2010, 5:02 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Sprigman: this is a specific v. general placebo issue. [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 7:40 pm by Keith Rizzardi
  Also, earlier this year in a 9th Circuit decision, Palouse Prairie Foundation v. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 10:22 am by Jeff Gamso
The Supreme Court laid it out in a capital case, United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 10:29 pm by Phillip V. Marano
CASE BRIEFNapolean Sarony, a photographer, sued Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co., a printing company, for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of 1874 (18 Stat. 78) when it attempted to sell 85,000 unauthorized copies of Sarony's Oscar Wilde No. 18 photograph.The 1790 Copyright Act explicitly protected any "map, [nautical] chart or book. [read post]
5 Feb 2010, 4:06 am
Flickr user objects to Independent newspaper’s unauthorised use of his photo (1709 Copyright Blog) (IP Whiteboard) Copyright woes of a game designer: Burrows v Smith (IP Osgoode) Neutralize UK file-sharing legal threats – Join TalkTalk (TorrentFreak) EWHC: No infringement; invalidity for lack of inventive step: Research in Motion Limited v Motorola (EPLAW) (IPKat)   United States US Patents Claiming under the influence (of Bilski) (12:01 Tuesday)… [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
Burrows v Smith (1709 Copyright Blog) (IPKat) UK MP’s frozen out of ACTA (Michael Geist) (IPKat) HMRC on the attack on image rights? [read post]
12 Aug 2008, 2:00 pm
Insurance 3 Ben Silver Fuel Outdoor Acquisitions 3 Alex Yaroslavsky Yaro Group, LLC Mediator 3 David Cassese Apex Appraisal Group Appraisal - Residential 2 Paul Wong Concept Realty NY Commercial Broker 1 Sherri Fried RED STONE TITLE & ABSTRACT, LLC Title Insurance 3 AARON KAGAN STUYVESANT HEIGHTS PROPERTIES LLC INVESTOR/OWNER 2 Franklin Burrowes OODA & Co, Inc Investor / Owner 3 Ronald Gold Gold Appraisal Appraiser 2 Lisa… [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 6:21 am
Relying on the 1999 Texas Supreme Court decision Burrow v. [read post]
20 Apr 2007, 2:32 pm
L&Q -v- Ansell appears to state that, once the arrears and costs set out in the Possession Order have been paid, the occupier ceases to be a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in the sense of Burrows because their occupation is no longer subject to s.85 Housing Act 1985 - either in terms of execution of the order or possible application for variation of the order. [read post]