Search for: "In re: Mark Brown v." Results 221 - 240 of 552
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Aug 2010, 1:52 pm by Transplanted Lawyer
Judge Walker has ordered that the stay of entry of judgment in Perry v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 4:30 am by Jim Dedman
We don’t discuss constitutional law much here at Abnormal Use, but after learning of last week’s ruling in Brown v. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 8:01 am by Michael Seidman
  Whereas the Brown I opinion was marked by sweeping and powerful rhetoric, Brown II (1955) suggested pragmatism and willingness to compromise. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 8:24 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
AT&T Corp., 550 U.S.437 (2007); see also Brown v. [read post]
10 Dec 2016, 6:42 am by Quinta Jurecic
And Vanda Felbab-Brown took a look at U.S. efforts to build partner capacity and militias abroad. [read post]
25 May 2009, 5:20 pm
  US Trademarks USTrademarkExchange.com: New web service for sale of registered trade marks (IP finance) Think outside the trademark box – staying on top of recent developments in other areas of IP law can help trade mark owners be more strategic in trying cases (Managing Intellectual Property)   US Trade Marks – Decisions Court of Appeal for District of Columbia affirms laches ruling dismissing REDSKINS cancellation: Pro-Football… [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
  Over at Balkinization, Mark Tushnet (Harvard Law School) compares the Roberts Court's recent decision on effective representation in plea bargaining to the Warren Court's decision in Terry v. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
: Kelly and another v GE Healthcare Ltd (IP finance) (Mis)appropriation of Wii and PlayStation brands to name medical disorders (IPKat) Is regulation of trade mark attorneys necessary? [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 5:00 am
  One of our readers sent us that brief (a publicly filed document) and asked us to comment.So we will, but we’re not identifying either the case or the plaintiff’s lawyer – if you’re reading, you know who you are.To us, the plaintiff’s proposition is, in one word, absurd. [read post]