Search for: "State v. Cochran"
Results 261 - 280
of 346
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2010, 7:07 am
Kaye also examines legal milestones, such as People v. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 1:14 pm
App. 2011); see also Napper, 322 S.W.3d at 242 (citing Estrada v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 3:03 pm
Fibre Disintegrating Co., 90 U.S. 566 (1874) (pure cellulose pulp preparation prepared by novel chemical process held not novel over prior art cellulose pulp preparations made by old process); Cochrane v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 9:16 am
From Judge Cochran's majority opinion:This is all very awkward. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 9:40 pm
Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 1:12 pm
In Cochran v. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 2:43 pm
(Houseman v. [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 9:01 pm
In Badgerow v. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 3:30 am
Cochran challenges to the SEC’s administrative law judge system. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 12:50 pm
In Cochran v. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 4:00 am
[See the Board's February 2008 decision (TTABlogged here), sustaining Nextel's opposition to Motorola's application to register a 911 Hz chirp on the ground that it failed to function as a trademark.]January 14, 2009 - 10 AM: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 8:34 pm
Ferguson and Brown v. [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 6:20 am
While the Commonwealth Court repeatedly upheld the doctrine to dismiss suits by plaintiffs in the cases of Cochrane v. [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 7:32 am
Kneeland, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 206 (1838); State v. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 4:35 pm
Coop. v. [read post]
25 Nov 2018, 4:29 pm
United States The internet cases blog has covered the case of Benson v. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 7:14 am
It is said that the law cannot keep pace with society, evolving about twenty years slower than the culture, but even the United States Supreme Court has caught on to the uniqueness of the modern “cell phone,” calling the devices “minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone” in a landmark case last year called Riley v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 10:17 am
S., at 184; Flook, supra, at 588, n. 9; Cochrane v. [read post]
