Search for: "State v. J. L. B." Results 2141 - 2160 of 2,362
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 May 2008, 10:00 am
Mascotte $92,350 $67,800 $43,030 $12,500 $215,680 Raymond J. [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 10:00 am
" [24] The state expressly states that such a user may not have not have protection within the laws of Michigan, unless there is a state or federal statute that expressly requires a manufacturer to warn. [25] Other states have also chosen to adopt the doctrine. [read post]
20 Apr 2008, 6:45 am
P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. [read post]
18 Apr 2008, 2:00 am
Protecting computer programs under the Copyright Act: Dais Studios v Bullet Creative: (IP Down Under), Assessing copyright risk in new classroom technologies: (IP Down Under), Cadbury loses battle over exclusive use of colour purple for chocolate wrapping in its case against Darrell Lea: (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog), (IP Down Under), (IPKat), (IPwar’s), Employee or independent contractor? [read post]
7 Apr 2008, 2:47 pm
El primer argumento se basaba en el antiguo y conocido precedente Wilko v. [read post]
6 Apr 2008, 12:28 pm
Radin, Regulation by Contract, Regulation by Machine, 160 J. of Inst'l & Theoretical Econ. 142 (2004). [read post]
26 Mar 2008, 8:25 pm
Introduction On March 7, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed its opinion in the case of International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. [read post]
22 Mar 2008, 2:00 am
: (Afro-IP)Australia Professor Fitzgerald’s opinion article ‘It’s vital to sort out ownership of ideas’: (IP:KCE)BrazilBrazil wrestles with decision on GM corn, seed patenting: (Intellectual Property Watch),PTO recognized as international patent search authority: (International Law Office)CanadaTrade mark statistics - CIPO 2006-2007 Annual Report: (Canadian Trademark Blog)IP injunctions in Canada: (ipblog.ca),Professor Ariel Katz’ research project on… [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 6:11 am
This post focuses on the limitations that the ADA imposes on such testing, and concludes that the Seventh Circuit’s approach to the issue in Karraker v. [read post]