Search for: "USA v. Doe"
Results 2341 - 2360
of 4,127
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Aug 2013, 8:32 am
” The rapper revealed he plans to sue for 8 to 10 million dollars, which might seem extreme for some but falls within the average damages compensation for infringing a celebrity’s publicity right in the USA. [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 6:53 am
That does not mean I accept every detail of his evidence but I thought the broad thrust was true". [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 4:32 am
Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997), or the “alternative means” test found in International Olympic Committee v. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 4:36 am
See Keene Corp. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 4:36 am
See Keene Corp. v. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 2:37 pm
We conclude that it does not. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 2:07 pm
But that does not vitiate their dangerous nature. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 9:36 am
The complaint does allege a general Section 1983 claim, along with a litany of common law causes of action. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 9:00 am
Field v. [read post]
24 Jul 2013, 6:23 am
For example, in United States v. [read post]
24 Jul 2013, 5:23 am
Ruskin does, is uncharitable to G-P. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 11:41 am
Organon USA, Inc. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 8:43 am
,and Danisco USA Inc. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 10:45 am
USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1110 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding no chance of success of state-law claim against publisher of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders); Hardin v. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 9:45 am
Houston Exploration Co. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 3:05 am
What is generic in one country may not be known or a well known trade mark in another in another (Polo in the UK v Polo in RSA; Kettle in the USA v Kettle in Europe; Xerox in the US and Xerox is RSA etc). [read post]
17 Jul 2013, 9:00 am
See Deloitte & Touche USA LLP v. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 12:43 pm
” Yash Raj Films (USA) v. [read post]
12 Jul 2013, 2:41 pm
Applying an agency theory, the panel concluded that Daimler AG had sufficient contacts with the state of California by virtue of the actions of its subsidiary Mercedes Benz USA to give California personal jurisdiction over the German parent , even though Mercedes Benz USA had no involvement with the alleged facts in Argentina. [read post]
12 Jul 2013, 12:58 pm
Espenscheid v. [read post]
