Search for: "Plante v. Plante"
Results 301 - 320
of 5,907
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Dec 2023, 7:44 am
To answer these questions, the author has chosen to focus on the application of the Loi fédérale sur les Brevets d’Invention (Federal Law on Patents) and the Loi fédérale sur la Protection des Obtentions Végétales (Federal Law on the Protection of New Plant Varieties). [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 2:26 pm
The Opinion of Advocate General Niilo Jääskinen in Case C-509/10 Josef and Thomas Geistbeck v Saatgut? [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 9:54 am
“We find the Commission’s conclusion that the Gateway Plant’s highest and best use is as its continued use as a [...] [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 3:33 pm
The decision in question is Case C‑534/10 P Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Schniga GmbH. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 11:50 pm
Can you sue the Power Plant owner? [read post]
28 Jan 2016, 2:41 am
In Occidental Chemical Corporation v. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 1:39 pm
Entergy Corp v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 5:46 am
[Sigmund v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 4:22 pm
In New Jersey v. [read post]
2 Jan 2009, 6:04 pm
Arguably, it also cannot be squared with the ruling last April of a sharply divided (5-4) Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. [read post]
27 Jan 2013, 11:53 pm
Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 17, the works connected with a Plant shall be so operated that (a) the volume of water received in the river upstream of the Plant, during any period of seven consecutive days, shall be delivered into the river below the Plant during the same seven-day period, and (b) in any one period of 24 hours within that seven-day period, the volume delivered into the river below the Plant shall be not less than 30%, and not more than… [read post]
20 Dec 2022, 1:33 pm
Mitchell v. [read post]
20 Feb 2007, 10:28 am
Today I taught the famous 1919 case of Dodge v. [read post]
5 May 2014, 8:35 am
In Pierson v. [read post]
25 May 2009, 11:25 am
Varieties protected by Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Title V can be sold only as a class of certified seed as will be designated by the individual states. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 10:00 pm
In the Deere v. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 12:39 pm
This is a big step forward for the proposed desalinization plant in Carlsbad.The Court of Appeal's opinion also seems right. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 8:44 am
In Matter of Laidlaw Energy and Environmental Inc. v Town of Ellicottville, the court found that the conclusion contained in the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings that "serious increases in harmful emissions" from the plant would result in an "unacceptable adverse impact" was not arbitrary and should be upheld. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 8:44 am
In Matter of Laidlaw Energy and Environmental Inc. v Town of Ellicottville, the court found that the conclusion contained in the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings that "serious increases in harmful emissions" from the plant would result in an "unacceptable adverse impact" was not arbitrary and should be upheld. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 1:56 pm
EPA and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. [read post]
