Search for: "Grant v Grant"
Results 2241 - 2260
of 104,902
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Mar 2024, 12:41 pm
., of Orlando, Florida, granted defendant Lockheed Martin’s Rule 702 motion to exclude the proffered testimony of Dr. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 11:52 am
The case is Callahan v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 10:56 am
In Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 10:00 am
Table of ContentsClaim HistoryThe PolicyThe IssuesThe Judge’s Decision The case of Mucciacciaro v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 6:15 am
In King v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 6:03 am
State v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 5:16 am
US v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 5:09 am
In this case, the SEC says, the settlement was reasonably designed to minimize the likelihood that Musk would violate the securities laws, and further review is not warranted (Musk v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 5:00 am
In the case of Leone v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 4:00 am
Cutting to the chase, I agree with Amy Howe's assessment (on SCOTUSblog) of yesterday's Supreme Court oral argument in FDA v. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 10:06 pm
Colvin v. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 9:05 pm
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in FDA v. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm
In Texas Bankers Association v. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 11:15 am
In S.I. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 8:08 am
In the Court's view, the best description of the correct approach for a judge to assess evidence in trade mark infringement and passing off cases is found in Mr Justice Jacob's judgment in Neutrogena v Golden [1996] RPC 473: "The judge must consider the evidence adduced and use his own common sense and his own opinion as to the likelihood of deception. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 6:19 am
In one, Lindke v. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 6:00 am
* For factual background of this appeal see Blackman v Metropolitan Tr. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 6:00 am
* For factual background of this appeal see Blackman v Metropolitan Tr. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 5:59 am
Those disclosure failures meant that the minority stockholders were not adequately informed, and that the transaction was not eligible for the safe harbor of the MFW framework (City of Dearborn Police and Fire Revised Retirement System (Chapter 23) v. [read post]
