Search for: "Quick v. State"
Results 2581 - 2600
of 4,768
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2012, 3:56 am
California (1960) and McIntyre v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 3:18 am
Bradford; Morrison v Circuit City Stores, Inc., 317 F3d 646 [6th Cir 2003]; Spinetti v Service Corp. [read post]
21 May 2013, 10:01 pm
They included: Individually Quick Frozen (IQF) – Oysters are frozen to reduce microorganisms including Vibrio bacteria and increase shelf life. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 4:00 am
For example, in Lingepo v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 8:05 am
In the 2010 case of Narayan v. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 8:05 am
In the 2010 case of Narayan v. [read post]
13 Dec 2017, 6:28 am
Boos Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is additional time added to the term of a patent based on delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during prosecution. [read post]
14 Mar 2021, 4:19 pm
Audio, LLC v. [read post]
1 Jul 2023, 2:31 pm
As for the Court's final cases, here's a quick round-up of my end-of-term predictions and how they fared. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 7:04 pm
IndianaOnlineLegal.com is a service from the Law Office of Brian V Powers, a licensed attorney in the State of Indiana. [read post]
31 May 2015, 3:47 am
The example of Swiss style claims is a reminder that things are not easily undone, and it is easy for quick fixes to leave problems for future generations. [read post]
9 Apr 2013, 11:00 am
Wilson v. [read post]
29 Jun 2019, 4:38 am
The Board was quick in pointing out that the symbolic meaning, impression that a work conveyed, or the intent of the author were irrelevant to whether the Work contained a sufficient amount of creativity (Compendium (Third) §310.3). [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 3:46 pm
As the judge stated: "The concept of a willing licensee arises in this context as follows. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 5:28 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 8:17 am
” In U.S. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2018, 7:17 am
Corp. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 7:22 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:03 am
The court reasoned that indirect use of trade secrets can be inferred from the timing of a defendant employee’s hire, deception in the employee’s departure, the corporate defendant’s lack of experience in the industry, low financial investment, and quick success. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 6:53 am
State v. [read post]
