Search for: "State v. Taylor "
Results 2481 - 2500
of 3,341
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2019, 7:09 am
Continental v. [read post]
24 Dec 2019, 8:06 am
Berkheimer and this year’s Garmin v. [read post]
6 Jun 2015, 9:14 am
Supreme Court will say about civil marriage in Obergefell v. [read post]
11 May 2018, 1:01 pm
Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 694 n.3 (Tex. 2003). [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 2:03 pm
Citing the Florida District Court of Appeals decision in Taylor v. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 9:07 am
Charbucks case (decision here, posted by Marty; the real name of the case is Starbucks Corp. v. [read post]
1 May 2015, 9:19 am
We may have jumped the gun last week when we stated that Davis v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 11:04 am
Cheryl Taylor Page and Bill Piatt, Human Trafficking (2023). [read post]
19 Oct 2013, 7:00 am
” After attending the oral arguments, Matt D. discussed an update in the FOIA case New York Times v. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 9:03 am
Dafoe, Taylor. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
19 Mar 2011, 1:17 pm
A slow week in the Ninth (for non-capital cases, at least), and an order amending the opinion, gives us an excuse to go back for a second pass at the interesting decision and sentencing issues in United States v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog) Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 9:12 am
Taylor, 295 F. [read post]
23 Dec 2011, 2:41 pm
See, also, Taylor v. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 5:17 am
Telford Taylor, the chief NMT prosecutor, came to think of the trial program as a failure. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 12:37 am
Michael Reed v. [read post]
