Search for: "Givens v. Rose" Results 341 - 360 of 1,033
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Dec 2018, 11:27 am by Joe
Seldom does a given person think of illegally obtained income and the tax implications of such income. [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 1:10 am by Ben Reeve-Lewis
The Civil Procedure Rules and the case of Chesters Accommodation Agency v. [read post]
23 Nov 2018, 8:09 am by CMS
The petitioners argue that an answer to this question can only be authoritatively given by the CJEU. [read post]
19 Nov 2018, 11:56 am by Anushka Limaye
Rose, Jim Miller, Elaine Kamarck and Maya MacGuineas will be on the panel. [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 3:25 am
  There is a growing feeling in some parts of the patent community that the EPO has raised the bar for plausibility too high (see here), particularly given the lack of direct basis for the concept in the EPC. [read post]
4 Sep 2018, 3:35 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 6:59 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
The recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 4:42 pm by INFORRM
Second, Wragg queries whether the harm Richard might have suffered at the BBC’s hands (if indeed there was some), rose to a comparable level to that which has attracted liability in [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 11:16 am by Eugene Volokh
And while the trial court found that Dow had "met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that appellants acted in a pattern of activity knowingly causing appellee to believe that he was being threatened or causing him mental distress," that also can't be enough -- both given the reported facts of the case, and given that the finding is just of threat or mental distress. [read post]
15 Jul 2018, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
Norton Rose Fulbright’s Social Media Bulletin has a post considering best practices which licencing trademarks following a case in which involved the use of a trademark on social media was held to be a contractual dispute. [read post]