Search for: "State v. Light" Results 2841 - 2860 of 25,774
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Feb 2024, 8:08 am by CMS
Despite the High Court’s comments, both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in Agbaje interpreted these in a different light. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 11:51 pm
The judgment merely states thatcat conceptually confused “it is sufficient to recall that, according to settled case-law, the repute of a trade mark is relevant, in assessing the likelihood of confusion, only as regards the repute of the earlier mark”, citing Gitana v OHIM — Teddy (GITANA), T‑569/11 (2013) (para 98). [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 5:03 am
[Here's a link to the court of appeals case information.]The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the court of appeals failed to read the letter in a light most favorable to the verdict. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 9:01 pm by Marci A. Hamilton and Leslie C. Griffin
The dogma is called something different in each faith, but, in the end, almost all religious organizations have an internal rule that a member is not permitted to put the faith in a bad light. [read post]
27 Jul 2012, 8:21 am
The case of HH v BLW [2012] EWHC 2199 (Fam), reported today on Bailli, deals with the rare instance of a costs order made in private law children proceedings. [read post]
20 Nov 2018, 11:06 pm by Roel van Woudenberg
(d) In a reply dated 28 October 2015 the Applicant argued the following:- The person skilled in the art was familiar with a wide variety of solid state emitters and a wide range of lumiphors and their chromaticities.- The skilled person would be able to predict the chromaticity of light emitted by any such combination of one or more solid state emitter and one or more lumiphor.- The skilled person was able to detect the chromaticity of emitted light to verify… [read post]
4 Aug 2016, 12:32 pm
The state had previously filed a compliant brief that covered many of the same points, but we ordered replacement briefs in light of Daire v. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 7:57 pm
Trial Court did not Err in Holding that Class Counsel owed Duty to Absent Class Members to Represent them in Collection of Judgment, not merely through Obtaining Judgment, Particularly in Light of Defendant-Employer’s Lack of Assets and Possible Bankruptcy Filing California Appellate Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in California state court against their employer, West Coast Digital GSM, alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action… [read post]