Search for: "State v. Light"
Results 2881 - 2900
of 26,397
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2011, 2:56 pm
A little over a week after the Supreme Court in Brown v. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 5:42 am
In light of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 11:23 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2007, 2:51 pm
For example, the Detailed Description states: The present invention also pertains to the design and configuration of composite cathodes of the present invention. [read post]
20 Nov 2018, 11:06 pm
(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]
28 Jan 2018, 5:39 pm
(As the Court stated in Kerr [v. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 6:49 am
Co. v. [read post]
4 Sep 2024, 1:01 pm
On August 28, 2024, the Sixth Circuit in Huang v. [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 7:23 am
., et al. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 10:58 am
District Judge Jeffrey V. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 10:58 am
District Judge Jeffrey V. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 10:58 am
District Judge Jeffrey V. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 6:00 am
The district court agreed with the State's contention, but felt bound to rule otherwise in light of a case decided in 1980 by this court. [read post]
20 May 2014, 11:37 am
The question is whether it's unconstitutional for the state to make public donors to that Proposition. [read post]
1 Dec 2006, 7:41 am
Reasoning that the "entire aim of the suit is to prove the existence of state secrets," Judge Ellis held that the complaint had to be dismissed in light of the privilege. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 1:24 pm
” See State v. [read post]
17 May 2016, 9:06 am
Zubik v. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 7:44 am
” Plus, the district court had reexamined other parts of the claim when the case was remanded for further proceedings in light of Martinez v. [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]
5 May 2011, 2:43 am
United States v. [read post]
