Search for: "Jacobson v. State"
Results 341 - 360
of 510
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Oct 2013, 7:39 pm
Jacobson Prods. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 8:12 am
Jacobson, J.S.C. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 6:53 am
Mary Jacobson, sitting in Mercer County, declared the New Jersey Civil Union law unconstitutional in the case of Garden State Equality v. [read post]
28 Sep 2013, 5:30 am
Jacobson of State... [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 1:10 pm
In a 55 page opinion today in Garden State Equality v. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 4:00 am
Jacobson, 153 F.3d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 1998). [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 4:58 am
Now the 1st DCA has found in Jacobson v. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 4:00 am
Awad v. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 3:58 pm
Gottus, 455 Pa. 327, 331, 314 A.2d 279, 281 (1974); Jacobson & Company v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 1:27 pm
A recent report by James Austin and Michael Jacobson demonstrates that decisions made at the local level can have a dramatic effect on state prison populations. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 11:56 am
Jacobson; and Allen R. [read post]
17 Feb 2013, 4:00 am
Steen and Jacobson were two of the individuals kidnapped. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 8:49 am
” The case is Green v. [read post]
8 Oct 2012, 1:08 pm
United States v. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 6:25 am
On appeal, the Circuit Court found that the District Court’s decision was inconsistent with a Supreme Court Judgement in Qualitex Co. v Jacobson Products Co. 514 U.S. 159, 162 (1995) and that the previous court was incorrect because Louboutin’s red soles have the requisite "distinctiveness" to merit trade mark protection. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 6:25 am
On appeal, the Circuit Court found that the District Court’s decision was inconsistent with a Supreme Court Judgement in Qualitex Co. v Jacobson Products Co. 514 U.S. 159, 162 (1995) and that the previous court was incorrect because Louboutin’s red soles have the requisite "distinctiveness" to merit trade mark protection. [read post]
20 Sep 2012, 1:13 pm
Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 162, 115 S. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 8:28 am
Christian Louboutin S.A. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 12:57 am
Such a decision was at odds with the Supreme Court's decision in Qualitex v Jacobson (1995) which held that a single color can be a valid trade mark "where the color has attained 'secondary meaning' and therefore identifies and distinguishes a particular brand (and thus indicates its 'source')". [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 10:46 am
Christian Louboutin v. [read post]
