Search for: "State v. Maple"
Results 261 - 280
of 313
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Mar 2010, 1:37 pm
Maple Ridge (District) (1992), 71 B.C.L.R. (2d) 68, 17 B.C.A.C. 172 (C.A.) at p. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 6:07 am
We uttered similar comments about innovator liability cases in the United States here. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 10:14 am
On the other hand, applying New York law in this instance, pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a participant "engaging in a sport or recreational activity... consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation" (Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; see Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 438-440 [1986]; Youmans v Maple… [read post]
30 Jan 2010, 4:37 pm
Each year, approximately 30,000 to 50,000 cases of hepatitis A occur in the United States. [read post]
18 Jan 2010, 9:24 pm
Co. of Am., 94 NY2d 330 ["out-of-pocket premium payments [for life insurance policies] would vanish within a stated period of time"]; Monter v Massachusetts Mut. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 8:04 am
Joyner reports the 2nd Court of Appeals made a similar ruling in September in Connecticut v. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 7:21 am
State v. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 2:18 pm
Maples v. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 8:35 am
In his dissenting opinion, Justice O'Donnell first agrees with the majority and the State ex. rel Ohio Edison Co. v. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 2:13 pm
In today’s case (Moskaleva v. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Class 46) India Chennai IP Appellate Board: Well-known trademarks - consumer recollection is key: Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Jai ram (International Law Office) Bombay High Court rules on the infringement of copyright in drawings: Indiana Gratings Private Limited & Anr v Anand Udyog Fabricators Private Limited & Ors (Spicy IP) Is ‘science’ essential for creating patent lawyers: some ‘general’ thoughts (Spicy… [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Class 46) India Chennai IP Appellate Board: Well-known trademarks - consumer recollection is key: Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Jai ram (International Law Office) Bombay High Court rules on the infringement of copyright in drawings: Indiana Gratings Private Limited & Anr v Anand Udyog Fabricators Private Limited & Ors (Spicy IP) Is ‘science’ essential for creating patent lawyers: some ‘general’ thoughts (Spicy… [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]
26 Apr 2009, 6:16 pm
(with files from Alex Dimson, student-at-law) provided different perspectives on public health class actions, such as SARS and Maple Leaf. [read post]
18 Feb 2009, 2:36 pm
I case, Maple Valley Prof. [read post]
9 Feb 2009, 12:25 am
See Eurowest Cinemas LLC v. [read post]
24 Dec 2008, 4:00 pm
– opinion article by Lawrence Lessig (Lessig) RIAA graduated response plan: Q&A with Cary Sherman (Ars Technica) RIAA plan meets with resistance from some ISPs (Internet Cases) (Techdirt) Licensing deal breaks down, Warner Music Group demands YouTube remove its music (ContentAgenda) (Techdirt) (Out-Law) (Techdirt) GateHouse Media sues New York Times over linking to its online publications (Techdirt) (The Trademark Blog) iPodhash project moves to Wikileaks following DMCA notice (Ars… [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 2:27 pm
It was concluded that there was no inherent weakness in using maple wood for bats as opposed to ash, although it was found that under any circumstances, maple bats were three times more likely to break into two or more pieces than ash bats. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 6:20 pm
Invoking references to the classic David v. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 3:57 am
(IP Spotlight) (Excess copyright) (Patent Docs) (Spicy IP) (IAM) (Patent Baristas) (Intellectual Property Watch) CAFC greatly limits software and business method patents: In re Bilksi (IP Law Observer) (Chicago IP Litigation Blog) (IP Spotlight) (The Prior Art) (Patent Baristas) (EFF) (Patent Prospector) (Technological Innovation and Intellectual Property) (Philip Brooks' Patent Infringement Updates) (Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog) (IP Updates) (Daily Dose of IP) (PLI) (Green Patent… [read post]
