Search for: "Cost v. Commonwealth" Results 281 - 300 of 671
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 May 2016, 6:37 am
 Because the Regulation merely limited the "use" of trade marks they did not strip away the trade mark owner;s right to prevent or exclude others from using their mark (citing Arnold J in Pinterest v Premium Interest). [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 3:05 pm by Dennis Crouch
  Depending upon how the statute is interpreted, this setup appears to create a presumption of injunctive relief – a stark difference from contemporary patent law doctrine under eBay v. [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 12:21 pm by Ronald Mann
About the only thing clarified by yesterday’s oral argument in Universal Health Services v. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 4:00 am by INFORRM
On 22 March 2016 in the case of Webber v Information Commissioner [pdf] (EA/2015/0194) the First-Tier Tribunal ordered disclosure of the details of the “Public Duty Cost Allowance” of up to £115,000 a year provided to former Prime Ministers. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 5:35 pm by Lawrence Solan
  Surely the defendant need not accept such representations.The beginnings of a solution to all of this was suggested in a recent oral argument before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Commonwealth v. [read post]
30 Jan 2016, 6:28 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Any longer sentence would be served at Massachusetts Correctional Institute (MCI), which is the name for a state prison in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 7:00 am by Samantha Knights, Matrix
Of interest to constitutional lawyers, the Court embarked upon a detailed consideration of an earlier decision in Quark Fishing Ltd v UK, App. [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm by John Elwood
The district court later awarded CRST over $4 million in costs and attorney’s fees – an award the Eighth Circuit reversed after applying a rule limiting civil rights fee awards to cases involving rulings “on the merits. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 4:03 am by David DePaolo
The complaint to Gahring's supervisor at Stoudt's was corroborated.The workers' compensation judge found Gahring's back problems were wholly attributable to his employment with Stoudt's, and dismissed Gahring's claim against R & R.But, the WCJ determined that Gahring had not given Soudt's adequate notice of the claim in accordance with Section 311 of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act.Up the appellate chain the case went.The Commonwealth… [read post]