Search for: "Deal v. State"
Results 2981 - 3000
of 26,554
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2015, 10:53 am
We got a few (largely unsatisfying) rulings dealing with ownership of LinkedIn contacts. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 7:07 pm
Utah Power & Light Co. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 2:45 pm
Angelo v. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 9:36 am
In particular, the court focused on a distinction that it had drawn in an earlier case, United States v. [read post]
18 Nov 2012, 6:37 am
In Crawford v. [read post]
10 Nov 2007, 6:41 pm
In Barnick v. [read post]
24 Feb 2012, 3:44 pm
Depending on who you are dealing with some aspects of an arbitration agreement may be negotiable.Marmet Health Care Center v. [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 4:11 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 4:00 am
” Within their statutory mandates, tribunals have a great deal of scope to design processes that improve access to justice, without neglecting efficiency. [read post]
4 May 2024, 10:35 am
State v. [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 6:37 am
The state law system of inspection rights ought to be robust enough to deal with this. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 4:33 am
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court decided Jeffrey Cookson v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 12:23 pm
v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 12:38 pm
In the case of Rosemond v. [read post]
2 Feb 2023, 4:30 am
As the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in NAACP v. [read post]
30 Aug 2024, 2:32 am
Other examples are where the further dealings might seriously damage the reputation of the trade mark (see Portakabin Ltd v Primakabin, Case C-588/08 and Viking Gas v Kosan Gas, Case C-46/10) or give the impression that there is a commercial connection between the person responsible for those dealings and the trade mark proprietor and, in particular, the impression that that person’s business is somehow affiliated to the trade mark proprietor or that there… [read post]
22 Jul 2018, 2:06 pm
National Institiute of Family Life Advocates v. [read post]
23 Jan 2022, 2:03 pm
(See Pate v. [read post]
19 Dec 2008, 5:02 pm
Gray v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 9:21 am
” United States v. [read post]
