Search for: "LAMB v. STATE"
Results 241 - 260
of 310
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Sep 2017, 5:10 am
They say mares eat oats, and does eat oats, and little lambs eat ivy. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 7:11 am
One of the news reports about the filing of this brief carries the title College Libraries v. [read post]
1 Feb 2007, 9:28 am
Massey v. [read post]
17 Apr 2011, 6:37 am
(Schofield v. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 5:45 pm
Fang G, Araujo V, Guerrant RL. (1991). [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 11:23 am
Fang G, Araujo V, Guerrant RL. (1991). [read post]
6 Sep 2009, 11:46 pm
See CIAS, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 8:13 pm
In economic literature, this behavior is known as “regulatory capture,” and the current political irony is that this is a long-time conservative critique of the regulatory state…. [read post]
31 Oct 2007, 8:23 am
Lamb, Jr. and Austin L. [read post]
19 Nov 2020, 9:19 am
Lamb, 342 N.C. 151 (1995), and State v. [read post]
4 May 2023, 7:38 am
State v. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 8:34 am
“ Lozano v. [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 6:37 am
He's a veteran of such battles as Hexion v. [read post]
26 May 2009, 6:27 am
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund v. [read post]
27 May 2012, 8:23 am
Jaguar Shoes v Jaguar Cars: Blame It On The Lawyers! [read post]
20 Jan 2024, 9:24 pm
See also Lamb v. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 11:19 am
United States Bank Nat. [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]
10 Oct 2014, 6:11 am
The agency also approved of a second set of regulations in the form of an interim final rule responding to the ruling in McCutcheon v. [read post]
27 Jul 2007, 10:47 am
The decision is here: Barnes v. [read post]
