Search for: "REED v. REED" Results 2041 - 2060 of 3,267
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Mar 2013, 9:50 am
By Reed Mercado  In a recent decision from the California Court of Appeals entitled Jolley v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 10:22 am
[If you want some handy tips on how to speed-read all those comments, try the Wired How-To Wiki, here] In case you missed it, Eli Lilly and Company v Human Genome Sciences, Inc UKSC 2012/0220 is not going on appeal to the United Kingdom's Supreme Court. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 9:30 am by Sandy Levinson
My friend Akhil Reed Amar, author of a new book on The Unwritten Constitution, weighs in with the following interestingn comments on the status of the presidential oath of office:* The sealing of the commission, not the taking of the oath of office, is the decisive moment of investiture. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 7:35 am
, asked the IPKat's old friend Steve Getzoff (Reed Smith LLP). [read post]
3 Dec 2012, 6:42 am by Asher Bearman
  Please continue reading below for the text of DLA Piper's follow-up Client Alert posted by John Reed and Jennifer Lloyd.In Gatz Properties LLC v. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 11:47 am
            This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog. [read post]
26 May 2016, 4:30 am by INFORRM
On 19 May 2016, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 9:31 am by Greg Reed
Lonnie Roach is a partner in the Austin law firm of Bemis, Roach & Reed. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 6:54 am by Marilyn Stowe
Gow v Grant Mrs Gow went to live with Mr Grant in 2002, when she was 64 and he was 58. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 12:34 am
Another great post with a bad taste title from suesspiciousminds.On a Rydering to NothingLucy Reed (who clearly also likes dubious post titles) discusses Mr Justice Ryder's speech to the ALC Conference. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:06 pm
Arsenal v Reed is an example, and contains the first statement that the double identity provisions are to be interpreted as requiring in addition a prejudice to the trade mark functions. [read post]