Search for: "I v. B" Results 2921 - 2940 of 24,529
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2012, 7:18 am
R. 4:5(b)(4)(A)(iii), that medical malpractice Defendants’ expert, Nurse Janet Willersdorf (who claimed that MCV/VCU’s Orthopaedic Unit did not have any “bed alarms” until 2009), had to respond to Sections I (B) and II (D) of her Subpoena Duces Tecum as modified to “bed alarms/alerts”. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 11:36 am
In this federal lawsuit, filed by an Indiana trademark attorney, the following claims are made: • Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement• Count II: False Designation of Origin, False Advertising and Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act Section 43(A)• Count III: Unfair Competition - Trade Name Infringement• Count IV: Unfair Competition - Passing Off • Count V: Unjust Enrichment GAB seeks equitable relief, damages, including punitive damages; costs and… [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 11:58 am by Law Lady
Finally, I'm back to my blog after getting out from many deadlines and below are some very interesting new decisions: Flo & Eddie v. [read post]
30 Jun 2024, 11:18 am by Giles Peaker
Howe Properties (NE) Ltd v Accent Housing Ltd (2024) EWCA Civ 297 Accent Housing levied a management fee on leaseholders which was at flat rate and a) differed by tenure (freehold and assured tenancies were at different rates) and b) was charged as against Accent’s management costs across its whole estate, some 3058 leasehold properties, not just this specific development. [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 2:28 pm by Patricia Hughes
In my last Slaw post, I discussed Morgan J. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 10:55 am by Rory Little
  I can’t recall a prior Term where that was true at the end of the prior Term. [read post]
17 Jan 2008, 6:00 am
I'm planning to attend the argument and will provide a report most likely tomorrow. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 9:00 pm by Karel Frielink
The post DE ADVOCAAT (V) appeared first on Karel's Legal Blog. [read post]
14 Feb 2010, 5:51 pm by jefhenninger
Kuchinski, 469 F.3d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 2006), in which the defendant was indicted both under § 2252A(a)(2) and under § 2252A(a)(5)(B), observed, in dicta, that “[i]f, as it seems, the counts were based on the same acts, entering judgment on both the offenses would be improper. [read post]