Search for: "T-7 Inc"
Results 3581 - 3600
of 8,450
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2015, 12:36 pm
The first of these is GO Outdoors Ltd v Skechers USA Inc II [2015] EWHC 1405 (Ch), a 19 May decision of Mrs Justice Rose, sitting in the Chancery Division, England and Wales, on an appeal from a decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 6:29 am
Spruce Environmental Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 2:10 pm
[Plaintiffs] identified the following defects as allegedly contributing to their injuries: (1) “[t]he vertical tile depth markers were partially submerged, making them illegible”; (2) “faded deck top depth markers”; (3) “[p]oor contrast on the signs containing ‘No Diving’ warning”; (4) “[p]oor location of signs”; (5) “[l]ack of fence between pools so users were not directed to entrance near ‘No Diving’… [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 3:13 am
Luego tú, nuevamente. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 7:20 am
Under the standard set forth by the US Supreme Court in Adarand Constructors Inc v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 4:38 am
Google, Inc., 86 A.D.3d 32, 38 (1st Dept 2011) (quoting Brian v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 4:38 am
Google, Inc., 86 A.D.3d 32, 38 (1st Dept 2011) (quoting Brian v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 7:06 pm
Under the standard set forth by the US Supreme Court in Adarand Constructors Inc v Pena (65 EPD ¶43,366 (1995)), to survive constitutional review, a government entity’s consideration of race has to meet strict scrutiny standards; thus, it must: (1) serve a compelling state interest; and (2) be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 8:59 am
In Kachina Pipeline Company, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 8:59 am
In Kachina Pipeline Company, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 6:52 am
The most recent edition of the Federal Judicial Center’s Manual for Complex Litigation treats both computer-generated evidence and expert witnesses’ underlying data as both subject to pre-trial discovery as necessary to provide for full and fair litigation of the issues in the case[7]. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 2:57 am
” The complaint’s reference to specific studies didn’t matter, since a plaintiff doesn’t need to “forecast” evidence sufficient to prove its case. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 9:57 pm
I can’t imagine having to deal with that while also being pregnant,” said Bill Marler, co-founder and partner with Marler Clark. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 9:36 am
.* Not so secret agent: when Bond isn't 007 but 0.77In "The wounded patent survived, was only just infringed, but no injunction", here, Darren wrote about the decision of Birss J in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc [2013] EWHC 3955 (Pat), a technically detailed case which amused Merpel, who commented that a case that started off being basically about chemistry ended up being basically about mathematics. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
ROYSTON, RAYZOR, VICKERY, & WILLIAMS, LLP v. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 8:15 am
T-Mobile USA, Inc., 415 F. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 8:15 am
T-Mobile USA, Inc., 415 F. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 2:17 pm
See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2015, 4:30 am
Court of Appeal decision prohibits Google from delivering offending search results http://t.co/wdrQeQqVhq -> Don't Bet on Neil Young Beating Donald Trump in Court Just Yet http://t.co/Jf5Ceyhgb1 -> Cloud Computing Advantage Under CASL http://t.co/VWsnzqy7CG Really? [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 8:26 am
United States (7-2 per Roberts). [read post]
