Search for: "State v. Light" Results 2121 - 2140 of 29,345
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Mar 2013, 7:21 pm by rhall@initiativelegal.com
Chinese Daily News, Inc., 623 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2010), and remanded it “for further consideration in light of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2013, 2:16 pm by Joel R. Brandes
[Spain] [Consent] [Petition Denied] In Caro v Sanchez, 2013 WL 5300671 (D.N.J.) [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
 Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:No person [1] shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, [2] who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to… [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 4:49 am by Jeff Welty
North Carolina, the burned-out brake light case in which the state supreme court ruled that an investigative stop may be based on an officer’s mistake of law, so long as the mistake is reasonable. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 2:12 pm
US law has also protected geographic indications through common law trade mark law without need for a registration ( the "Cognac" case - Institut National Des Appellations v Brown-Forman Corp (TTAB 1998)).However, when it comes to produce and products which are of such strong cultural and heritage state significance like the New Mexico chile, it is the state's government that usually applies for a certification mark. [read post]
18 Jul 2024, 11:08 am by Julia E. Browning and Stephen Marietta
United States Supreme Court Closes 2023 Term appeared first on Gibbons Law Alert. [read post]
18 Jul 2024, 11:08 am by Julia E. Browning and Stephen Marietta
United States Supreme Court Closes 2023 Term appeared first on Gibbons Law Alert. [read post]
11 May 2012, 4:57 am by Dwight Sullivan
  O’Connor was granted, vacated, and remanded for further consideration in light of Ashcroft v. [read post]