Search for: "Blue v. State" Results 3141 - 3160 of 3,461
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Mar 2023, 11:35 am by bndmorris
Beyer’s article Estate Planning Ramifications of Obergefell v. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 12:04 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
The American University Law Review is proud to present its annual Federal Circuit symposium, Panel 2: TrademarksFirst Amendment Freedom of Speech and Trademarks: What Is, and What Should Be, the Relationship Between the Two? [read post]
21 Aug 2020, 12:30 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Lots of marks held not famous are relatively not frequent: Buck Rogers, Blue Man Group, Field of Screams. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 9:22 am by Schachtman
The school lost its accreditation in 1946, and closed.16 After receiving this degree, Selikoff continued his efforts to return to Scotland, to complete his “triple qualification” for medical licensure in Scotland, which would allow him to sit for the licensing examination in one of the United States. 1943 – 1944. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 8:56 am by Ronald Collins
Second, thanks to the tremendous generosity of someone who contacted me out of the blue at the start of my project — Judge Hiller B. [read post]
31 Mar 2025, 6:58 am by Dan Bressler
An actual conflict exists where an attorney has ‘divided and incompatible loyalties within the same matter necessarily preclusive of single-minded advocacy,’ whereas a potential conflict is one that may never be realized (People v Cortez, 22 NY3d 1061, 1068 [2014]). [read post]
9 Dec 2016, 3:30 am by INFORRM
In R (Wright) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] UKHL 3, Baroness Hale noted that Article 8 had been held to include the right to establish and develop relationships with others. [read post]
13 May 2012, 5:52 pm by Jeralyn
If jurors wanted to hear from a witness who was discussed at trial but did not testify, like Rielle Hunter, Bunny Mellon or Lisa Blue Baron, it can’t look to Edwards, it must look to the Government. [read post]
20 May 2021, 2:57 am by Jessica Kroeze
The Board also set forth (point 5.4) that, on the basis of the minutes of the oral proceedings in examination, it was at least implicit during the oral proceedings, and should have been known to the applicant, that both D1 and D2 were considered as "closest prior art".V. [read post]