Search for: "United States v. Goodwill" Results 261 - 280 of 485
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Sep 2013, 7:56 am by Joe Virene
”  However, when it comes to determining the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act, the United States Supreme Court recently held non-competes should be treated the same as any other contract The Nitro-Lift Decision In Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C. v. [read post]
26 Aug 2013, 8:52 am by Gene Quinn
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Sequenom’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Ariosa from making, using, or selling that test. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 4:33 am
It had built up a good reputation with major firms of architects in the United Kingdom. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 1:25 pm
  (f) Goodwill as a trade, business or professional asset shall be deemed to be situated at the place where the trade, business or profession to which it pertains is carried on. [read post]
24 May 2013, 6:52 am
  If the shirts had been sold in the United States, Rihanna would have a strong claim of violation of her right of publicity. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 1:42 pm by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 57220, April 3, 2013) and permitted an inmate to proceed with his free exercise claim that authorities seized two religious books from his cell.In Goodwill v. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 7:59 pm by Miriam Seifter
  The United States, participating as an amicus supporting reversal, takes a middle ground. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 10:23 am by Ron Coleman
 The foreign editions are uniformly manufactured outside the United States. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 9:39 am
I've added a statement on the case from The Owners' Rights Initiative, about the Supreme Court ruling that even books purchased outside the United States are subject to the 'First Sale Doctrine' as long as they are legally purchased (piracy is still a no-no), and brought into the United States. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 4:09 am by Rick E. Rayl
United States (2012) 133 S.Ct. 511, in which the Supreme Court rejected an argument that temporarily flooding someone's property cannot qualify as a taking, as a matter of law. [read post]