Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 2441 - 2460
of 4,554
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2015, 9:14 am
LG Electronics[5] and Bowman v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 4:55 pm
Cir. 2009).(...)This is the precise sort of conven- ience or business strategy excluded by American Seating. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 1:45 pm
Relying heavily on Skilling v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 11:19 am
The Court did not precisely define what a showing of “unusual circumstances” would entail, but expressly approved local agencies’ consideration of local conditions and held that the lead agency’s decision on that prong of the exception would be subject to the deferential substantial evidence standard of judicial review. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 2:17 pm
McCleskey v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 8:13 am
McDowell v. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 4:58 am
Ironically, one of the cases cited for “these standards” was Carrera v. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 5:00 am
The only proper theory was negligence:Since the strict liability rule of §402A is not applicable, the standard of care required is that set forth in §388 of the Restatement dealing with the liability of a supplier of a chattel known to be dangerous for its intended use. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 4:06 am
To say that a new use transforms the work is precisely to say that it is derivative and thus, one might suppose, protected under §106(2). [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 3:19 am
Mercer’s 0% DLOM, if not with his precise reasons, stating as follows: [Man Choi Chiu] is not entitled to a lack of marketability discount. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 9:17 am
The day of precise quantitative measurement of health and welfare effects has not yet arrived. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 7:43 pm
Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803) and McColluch v. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 3:29 pm
This event will focus on the OHIM Community trade mark opposition decision in CANAL + v KABLEPLUS of 13 February 2014, where an opponent was put to proof of use of a mark which was not the basis of his opposition. [read post]
15 Feb 2015, 12:58 pm
Judge Newman’s Articulation of the Post-Teva standard of review. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 5:58 am
Candyland, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 11:12 am
--As to the 1876 case:--In its 1876 decision in Russell v. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 9:15 am
In Richardson v. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 6:28 am
The court rejected the employee’s jurisdictional and First Amendment challenges (Springs v. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 8:49 am
Sec. 33 tells us registration is prima facie evidence of exclusive right to use mark in connection w/goods. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 5:18 pm
I cannot say precisely when that time will be. [read post]
