Search for: "Low v. Low" Results 2101 - 2120 of 15,539
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Nov 2021, 8:26 pm by David Kopel
This post surveys the pro/con social science evidence presented in the amicus briefs in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 1:29 am by Neil Wilkof
Kat friends Chia Ling Koh and Zhen Kai Giam report on TMRG Pte Ltd and another v Caerus Holding Pte Ltd and another [2021] SGHC 163. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 3:20 am by Xandra Kramer
Often, the threshold is set rather low, but in two recent cases the CJEU seems to have adopted a stricter interpretation. [read post]
30 Oct 2021, 11:09 pm by Florian Mueller
Low ignition is also key when highly combustible material is hit.SWM obtained that job-killer patent more than a decade ago from the EPO: EP1482815 on "smoking articles with reduced ignition proclivity characteristics. [read post]
28 Oct 2021, 10:10 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Interclick LinkedIn Beats Referrer URL Privacy Class Action on Article III Standing Grounds–Low v. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 5:15 am by Dennis Crouch
  Although a request for responsive briefing is indicative of some interest in the case, the threshold is quite low and so it is much too early to suggest that these cases are likely to be granted certiorari. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 8:43 am by Rachel Casper
In raising awareness of the need for pro bono work and highlighting great existing pro bono work in the state, MassProBono hopes to close the gap of an estimated 80% of low-income people with unmet civil legal needs. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 3:50 am by SHG
I mentioned this on the twitters and was told by a follower I respect that it went on to be inspirational, an exploration of human motivations and growth, greed v. fear v. life situations for people who had never been exposed to inhumanity. [read post]
21 Oct 2021, 7:36 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
A recent federal government case, Ebada v. [read post]
” In affirming the lower court’s decision, the circuit court observed that under Massachusetts v. [read post]
However, no unfair advantage was found because the marks were deemed to have a low level of similarity and “OAT” was descriptive. [read post]
However, no unfair advantage was found because the marks were deemed to have a low level of similarity and “OAT” was descriptive. [read post]