Search for: "State v. J. P."
Results 2961 - 2980
of 4,861
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 May 2010, 4:53 am
State v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 6:08 pm
Battery, (1998); and California, J. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 3:59 am
More unfair advantage, but only where the goods are “luxury” enoughKenzo Tsujimoto v EUIPO, Joined Cases C‑85/16 P and C‑86/16 P, CJEU (May 2018)Kenzo is a French fashion house with Japanese roots. [read post]
25 May 2011, 12:47 pm
Paul V. [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 6:27 am
Kline of Kline Law Office, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.Representing Appellee Ellis: Paul J. [read post]
11 Apr 2008, 3:17 am
Paul J. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 8:57 am
Kite dissenting, joined by J. [read post]
14 Aug 2008, 1:20 pm
J. [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 5:50 pm
Hutcheson (formerly known as “KGM”) v News Group Newspapers, heard 24 May 2011 (Master of the Rolls, Etherton and Gross LJJ) Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd, heard 26 May 2011 (Sharp J) Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Foley & ors, heard 7-8 June 2011 (Eady J) Cook v Telegraph Media Ltd, heard 9 June 2011 (Tugendhat J) [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 9:20 am
J. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 2:07 pm
” (FDA’s determination of its jurisdiction to issue the ban was challenged and upheld in State of La. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 12:16 pm
Shine by Lauren Myracle; j. [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 5:01 am
(quoting State v. 119 Vote No! [read post]
18 Oct 2014, 6:54 am
Titus, William J. [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 6:58 am
Adrian J. [read post]
19 Dec 2010, 12:43 pm
-Adrian J. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 4:56 am
Having fundamentally misunderstood the nature of invention, the United States Supreme Court has dealt a potentially disastrous blow to personalized medicine in its decision in Mayo v Prometheus, which invalidated Prometheus’s claim to a diagnostic correlation. [read post]
22 May 2015, 4:19 pm
Queens Co., 1998) (Milano, J.): Seabrook v. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 9:04 am
J. [read post]
1 Sep 2019, 8:26 am
“[T]he language of [section] 1914 itself ... limits standing to challenge state-law terminations of parental right to parents ‘from whose custody such child was removed’ ” (Matter of Adoption of Child of Indian Heritage, 111 N.J. 155, 179, 543 A.2d 925, 937, quoting 25 USC § 1914; see Matter of S.C., 1992 OK 98, ¶ 23, 833 P.2d 1249, 1254, overruled on other grounds Matter of Baby Boy L., 2004 OK 93, 103 P.3d 1099). [read post]
