Search for: "Party X v. Party Y"
Results 281 - 300
of 463
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Dec 2013, 4:45 am
It has no power to order X to give money to Y. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 9:15 am
Beyond that, a song with samples v. a mashup with lots of samples are effectively the same thing from a legal standpoint. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 7:13 am
Cooper, in his November 29, 2013 opinion in Travis v. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 6:27 am
In Millard v Miller, No. 05-C-103-S, 2005 U.S. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 6:29 am
No trade dress this time.This first Apple v. [read post]
9 Nov 2013, 3:59 pm
In X, Y, Z v. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 4:13 am
For example, the correlative of a right is a duty, and if X holds a right against Y, it necessarily follows that Y then owes X a du [read post]
19 Oct 2013, 8:53 pm
If the party against whom the statement was admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party may examine the declarant on the statement as if on cross-examination. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 12:19 pm
And where: (c) An authorisation to place Product X on the market as a medicinal product has been granted; (d) An SPC has been granted in respect of Product X; and (e) A separate authorisation to place Product Y on the market as a medicinal product has subsequently been granted. [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 8:01 am
Or consider what happens if the company is in the business of "X" when the noncompete agreement is entered into but later expands into "Y" and "Z" business? [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 2:56 am
Ergo, if plaintiff’s shares are currently worth “x”, but defendants’ improper actions caused the shares to lose “y” in value, the could would award plaintiff “x” plus “y”. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 8:34 pm
After more news of the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to raw milk cheese, it reminded me of a post from 2001: After the recent E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to Bravo raw milk gouda cheese that sickened 38 (one with HUS), the New York Times is quickly becoming the go to newspaper for cheese lovers. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 7:17 am
The applicant typicallyelects a species (e.g., widget + X), focuses on prosecutingthe generic claims to the widget and any claims to thewidget + X species, and withdraws the claims to the nonelectedspecies, widget + Y and widget + Z. [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 7:31 pm
A New York Probate Lawyer said this case is a contested probate proceeding wherein the petitioner, A, the decedent’s second wife, moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment admitting the proffered instrument dated 21 December 2005 to probate and dismissing the objections filed by three of the four of decedent's children from his first marriage, X, Y and Z. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 11:07 am
”6 In support, he cites Eldred v. [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 3:35 pm
Thirdly, it followed that the State had failed to protect B’s physical and psychological integrity and that there had been a violation of the positive duty under Article 8 (applying X & Y v Netherlands). [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 3:35 pm
Thirdly, it followed that the State had failed to protect B’s physical and psychological integrity and that there had been a violation of the positive duty under Article 8 (applying X & Y v Netherlands). [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 3:35 pm
Thirdly, it followed that the State had failed to protect B’s physical and psychological integrity and that there had been a violation of the positive duty under Article 8 (applying X & Y v Netherlands). [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 7:14 am
Speech beyond “I will sell you X good at Y price” can be commercial, depending on the circumstances. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 7:02 am
Over the past two-and-a-half years, we have published over a hundred posts on the NDAAs and related legal developments, including the Southern District of New York’s important decision in Hedges v. [read post]
