Search for: "State v. Master" Results 2161 - 2180 of 3,868
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 May 2018, 10:00 am by Christopher Schmidt
I had a finished dissertation on “Postwar Liberalism and the Origins of Brown v. [read post]
21 Apr 2013, 3:20 pm
There again, the peculiarly interesting state of trade mark law in the United Kingdom and, not far beyond it, in the territory of the European Economic Area, might be closer to the cause. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 6:02 pm by Hannah Diaz
After welcoming everyone to the event, EFF's Cindy Cohn began the evening's activities by introducing our intrepid Quiz Master Kurt Opsahl, and our judges Alex Moss, Andrew Crocker, and David Greene. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 8:22 pm by Larry
Two masters of the tariff struggled for the name-side they did, but the Court went to the use-side.But a Chosen One there is. [read post]
26 Dec 2012, 8:49 am by Rebecca Tushnet
The state-law trademark claims were also reversed. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 12:05 am by INFORRM
Hutcheson (formerly known as “KGM”) v News Group Newspapers, heard 24 May 2011 (Master of the Rolls, Etherton and Gross LJJ) Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd, heard 26 May 2011 (Sharp J) Lord Ashcroft v Foley & ors, heard 7-8 June 2011 (Eady J) [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 2:03 pm by INFORRM
Next Week in the Courts Reserved Judgments The following reserved judgments in media and related cases remain outstanding: Imerman v Tchenguiz (and linked appeals), heard 10 to 11 May 2010 (Master of the Rolls, Moses and Munby LJJ) Flood v Times Newspapers Limited, heard 25 and 26 May 2010 (Master of the Rolls and Moore-Bick and Moses LJJ) Ambrosiadou v Coward, heard 21 and 22 June 2010 (Eady J) Clift v Slough BC heard 23 and 24… [read post]
17 May 2020, 4:39 pm by INFORRM
On 6 May 2020 Master Dagnall handed down judgment in the breach of confidence case of Media Entertainment NV v Karyagdyyev & Anor [2020] EWHC 1138 (QB). [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 7:50 am by Evan George
” They also want a special master appointed to oversee the state’s compliance with these deadlines.   The state’s response   In the motion to dismiss, attorneys for the state argued that responsibility for the planet-warming emissions at issue lies with fossil fuel companies, not the Department of Transportation. [read post]