Search for: "Sales, C. v. Sales, S."
Results 3541 - 3560
of 6,064
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Feb 2013, 5:47 am
Harrell v. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 5:33 am
Florida Statutes § 817.034(3)(c)-(d). [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 6:04 pm
But last week, in NNN Durham Office Portfolio 1, LLC v. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 9:13 am
Post-Injunction, stylized SleekCraft logo with "S C" lettering Post-Injunction SlickCraft logo without "S C" lettering. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 6:08 am
In a recent judgment (Case C-68/12 Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky v Slovenská sporitel’ňa a.s.), the Court of Justice held that the fact that the undertaking that is being affected by an anticompetitive agreement might be operating illegally on the market is irrelevant for the application of Article 101 TFEU. [read post]
10 Feb 2013, 8:23 am
Yes, in the case of Benefit Bank v. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 9:45 am
The case is Konowaloff v. [read post]
5 Feb 2013, 6:52 am
This post explores the facts of Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 8:04 am
Fox v. [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 8:04 am
Fox v. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 11:37 am
The Supreme Court has recently heard arguments in the case of Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 5:46 am
S. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 4:35 am
Hall v. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 9:48 am
The case is Ashby Donald and Others v France. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 6:50 am
Criminal Code Sentencing Amendments In March 2012, amendments to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code (the “Code”), which were part of the Federal Government’s omnibus crime bill (Bill C-10), received Royal Assent. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 2:36 pm
Starring in the latest development of Apple v Samsung [or, more properly, Samsung v Apple; Merpel notes that actions for declaration of non-infringement appear to be back-to-front: where infringement is alleged, it is usually in the form of a counterclaim brought by the defendant] is the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (The Hague District Court). [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 1:02 am
Because Schedule I is the most restricted drug classification under the CSA, the production, sale, and use of marijuana are largely banned by federal law. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 1:02 am
Because Schedule I is the most restricted drug classification under the CSA, the production, sale, and use of marijuana are largely banned by federal law. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 5:17 am
There, as Case C 96/09 P Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Budějovický Budvar, described by the IPKat here, they were unceremoniously tossed back to the General Court for its further attention. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 4:10 am
As to the remaining four items that Lacy claimed to have sold, the lack of sales for a [read post]
