Search for: "Jacks v. State" Results 321 - 340 of 2,861
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jul 2023, 11:40 pm by Eleonora Rosati
The IPKat is pleased to host the following guest post by Katfriend Alessandro Cerri regarding the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Jack Daniel’s v VIP IP dispute. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 9:39 am by Venkat
(See the Ozimals ruling, “17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices” but see the Smith v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 6:11 am by Marissa Miller
This blog’s Shelby County v. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 6:18 pm
SUSAN COMBS, SUCCESSOR TO CAROLE KEETON STRAYHORN, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-07-00006-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-12-08)08-0327 WOODROW WILSON WILLIAMS v. [read post]
30 Oct 2018, 9:58 am by Kevin Kaufman
The Task Force has already seen results, facilitating voluntary local reforms, and it takes on even greater importance in the wake of the Wayfair v. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 4:25 pm by Howard Bashman
” And Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “State’s Bid to Skirt Drug-Pricing Preemption Put to High Court Test. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 11:00 am by Karen Tani
Mayer, which held that private acts of race discrimination in housing were prohibited by the Civil Rights Act; and United States v. [read post]
1 Jul 2024, 4:05 am by Howard Friedman
Green, Moral Reality as a Guide to Original Meaning: In Defense of United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 7:32 am
Mayer, which held that private acts of race discrimination in housing were prohibited by the Civil Rights Act; and United States v. [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 5:00 am by Haim Abraham
From 1812 through the mid-20th century, the state immunity doctrine was interpreted in accordance with the Supreme Court case Schooner Exchange v. [read post]
28 Jul 2012, 5:44 pm by INFORRM
The appeal by way of case stated in the “Twitter joke” case (Chambers v DPP) has been allowed. [read post]