Search for: "State v. Holder"
Results 2801 - 2820
of 7,197
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Apr 2007, 9:49 pm
Tomorrow in Permanent Mission of India v. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 6:38 am
., LLC v. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 12:55 am
See Mulford v. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 10:37 am
Zalewski v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 11:04 am
Co., 13 N.Y. 31 [1855]), and a few decades later the United States Supreme Court rejected it also (Grigsby v. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 1:29 am
[Post by Venkat, with additional comments by Eric] Facebook v. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
Just one week before, however, we had discussed Rescuecom v Google (...), a case where the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit come to the opposite conclusion on the exact same facts. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 8:37 am
Haar (2d Cir. 2001) (holding, before the TDRA increased the fame standard, that trademark holder’s annual sales of $280 million were not enough to constitute fame); Avery Dennison Corp. v. [read post]
28 Nov 2016, 10:00 am
Jennings v. [read post]
1 Apr 2020, 10:38 am
In addition to those ten Nokia v. [read post]
10 May 2018, 8:00 am
Hartsock v. [read post]
10 May 2018, 8:00 am
Hartsock v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 7:09 am
In Feltus v. [read post]
23 Feb 2013, 11:30 pm
Since our client resided in Memphis, Tennessee, his application had a better chance compared to states under the 9th Circuit (see Momeni v. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 9:49 am
" In KSR v. [read post]
4 Feb 2018, 7:51 am
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in MGM v. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 9:05 am
Microsoft was a third party beneficiary entitled to rely on these contracts (Microsoft Corp. v Motorola, Inc. [read post]
19 Mar 2007, 1:36 am
United States U.S. [read post]
8 Sep 2021, 2:49 pm
This approach also is consistent with that of other states like New York. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 8:39 am
[All of the facts in this post come from the 11th Circuit opinion in United States v. [read post]
