Search for: "Macy v. Macy"
Results 261 - 280
of 283
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2009, 12:23 am
In Gilmore v. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 5:16 am
Summary of Decision issued February 23, 2009Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.Case Name: Schmidt v. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 1:32 am
Macy’s, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-00828, 2008 U.S. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 1:32 am
Macy’s, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-00828, 2008 U.S. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 1:32 am
Macy’s, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-00828, 2008 U.S. [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 11:51 pm
Gilmore v. [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 3:34 am
" Gilmore v. [read post]
8 Feb 2009, 8:22 pm
The District Court of New Jersey's recent decision in Gilmore v. [read post]
8 Feb 2009, 8:22 pm
The District Court of New Jersey's recent decision in Gilmore v. [read post]
17 Jan 2009, 9:55 am
Anthony Distributors, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2008, 1:02 pm
John Strauss, one of the heirs to Macy's, owned two classic cars, a 1931 Model J Duesenberg and a 1930 Rolls Royce. [read post]
18 Jun 2008, 12:11 pm
In Universal Music v. [read post]
15 Jun 2008, 8:25 pm
BOBS-MERRILL v. [read post]
20 May 2008, 1:50 am
The case is titled United Fabrics International, Inc. v. [read post]
9 May 2008, 10:30 pm
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: Order to transfer myspace.co.uk to MySpace overturned: (Out-Law), (IMPACT), New branding scheme for Ethiopian coffees: (Afro-IP), (IP finance), (IPKat), USPTO to appeal Tafas/GSK v Dudas: (Patent Docs), (Patently-O), (PLI), (Patent Baristas), (Managing Intellectual Property), (IP Law360), (Patent Prospector), (Ladas & Parry),… [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 10:02 am
(For some reason I thought they both ran the same year, which would have been awesome, instead they both ran against-- and in some way contributed to the victory of John V. [read post]
18 Oct 2007, 10:00 am
DeVita v. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 1:27 am
Macy's East LLC U.S. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 7:23 am
Because Macy has not presented evidencefrom which a reasonable jury could conclude that the Board's proffered reason for firing her was pretextual, and because Macy has forfeited her retaliation claims and state-law claims, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 07a0134p.06 2007/04/12 USA v. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 6:00 pm
Judge Lasnik presumably will enter it in short order.The case is Topline Corp. v. [read post]
