Search for: "MARKS v. STATE" Results 221 - 240 of 21,429
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Mar 2024, 5:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
However, these allegations are “utterly refute[d]” by the documentary evidence, which defined the scope of the parties’ engagement and confirmed that defendants had no such duty (Chen v Romona Keveza Collection LLC, 208 AD3d 152, 157 [1st Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]; CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 1:11 am by David Pocklington
Given his decision to refuse a faculty to remove all of the pews, the Chancellor stated that the Petitioners may wish to re-think their proposals in respect of the heating. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 6:19 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Anderson: States cannot disqualify candidates for federal offices from the ballot under Section 3. [read post]
But the court, in adopting an expansive reading of a recent Supreme Court precedent, cautioned that the news publication might have a strong defense on the likelihood of confusion analysis (Punchbowl, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 4:05 pm
Start it at the 30 second mark.)Regardless, today's opinion is uniquely Californian, I think. [read post]
The explanatory memorandum of the original draft highlighted that the June 2022 US Supreme Court decision to strike down Roe v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 9:08 am by Marcel Pemsel
The CJEU answered the question in the affirmative but the court seized will only have jurisdiction to decide on the damage caused in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs. [read post]
3 Mar 2024, 10:42 pm by Eleonora Rosati
” (Now that one of the most significant trade mark cases in modern times has drawn [or is about to draw!] [read post]
2 Mar 2024, 1:04 pm by Orin S. Kerr
This is the same mistake that the initial Fifth Circuit panel made in United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2024, 3:06 am by jonathanturley
For example, Michael Waldman, president of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, noted that in 1974 the Court considered United States v. [read post]