Search for: "Does, 1-25" Results 2681 - 2700 of 18,561
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Dec 2016, 5:22 am by Afro Leo
Specifically, it relied on sections 34(1)(a) or 34(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, which provides for the infringement of a mark where there has been use of a same or similar mark, in respect of identical goods or services in the first instance or similar goods or services in the latter instance, provided there is likely to be deception or confusion in the marketplace.The SCA went into what the purpose of a trade mark is and how it is meant to serve as a 'badge of… [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 11:43 am
The rule is Texas Railroad Commission Rule 3.70, and the amended rule goes into effect on March 1, 2015. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Court of Appeals held that a New York City retired police officer's accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits does so operate by [1] replacing earnings during the period when the officer could have been employed absent the disabling injury and then [2] serving as pension allotments. [read post]
28 Sep 2023, 7:15 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
Inj. and Workers’ Comp. 2d § 31.21[1]; Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law, Ch. 16, § 16.09.] [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 9:00 am
While buckling up is always wise, we want to remind readers that forgetting to do so does not mean you “deserve” to be an injury victim. [read post]
3 Jan 2016, 6:32 am by John H Curley
Dist. 24J, 186 Or.App. 19, 24-25, 61 P.3d 970 (2003) (for ORS 243.706(1) to bar the enforcement of an arbitration award, "the award must order something that either the legislature or the courts have determined to be contrary to public policy").The City is currently reviewing the decision and has not yet announced whether it will appeal further. [read post]
1 May 2013, 12:50 pm by WIMS
We defer to the EPA's reasonable construction of the statute, as adopted by the EAB, that BACT does not apply to mobile support vessels unattached to the drillship." [read post]
16 Jan 2013, 2:27 pm by Rick E. Rayl
  Whether that is because (1) the government action did not take the form of a condition of approval, and/or (2) the exaction involved payment of money, as opposed to a dedication requirement remains to be seen. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 5:53 am
Our next post will discuss case management considerations. [1] See, e.g., Unger v. [read post]