Search for: "Quick v. State"
Results 2421 - 2440
of 4,788
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2015, 9:16 am
They show the truth of the old adage that bad facts make bad law.The first is United States v. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 1:28 pm
This came squarely into play last week in Dougherty v. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 1:05 pm
A quick look at the Westlaw version shows that it should be Cocaine – BailFrom November 5, 2018:In the Case People v Kindell, 148 AD3d 456 (1st Dept 2017), Susan Axelrod is listed as both the counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 4:33 am
Indeed, Vogue was right and in fact today the Court of Appeal issued its decision in Fenty v Arcadia, confirming Birss J's judgment and holding that "the sale by Topshop of the t-shirt amounted to passing off. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 7:18 am
Aspiring IP scholars sometimes ask me what conferences they should attend, so here is a quick overview of some of the many options. [read post]
4 Mar 2025, 7:51 am
Sun Nong Dan Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 7:19 am
AUTO - SUM - BAD FAITH DENIAL OF CLAIM Grinshpun v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 3:41 am
Harrington v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 7:49 am
United States and Tolentino v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 2:46 am
There was still no infringement or passing off so far as SCRABBLE v SCRAMBLE was concerned, however. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 6:50 am
United States. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 8:48 am
This case also provides insight on settlements that seek quick relief. [read post]
29 Nov 2014, 9:19 pm
At the time, Calcar was publishing "Quick Tips" guides: booklets with condensed information from a car's owner's manual. [read post]
27 Feb 2025, 12:25 pm
Pacira BioSciences, Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2019, 7:29 am
State v. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 12:30 pm
State v. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 10:29 am
Co. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 7:34 am
In Stoddart v. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 6:01 am
In Wisconsin, a case I handled established the compensability of secondary inhalation [Kufall v. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 7:15 pm
The court also found that the purported pro-competitive benefit suggested by defendants – driving down compensation to workers – was not a cognizable procompetitive benefit under the Sherman Act.California v. [read post]
