Search for: "In the Interest of: R.C." Results 361 - 380 of 395
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jan 2007, 9:53 am
Purdy, 382 F.3d 774, 778 (8th Cir.2004), the court held that the ACPA “was intended to balance the interests of trademark owners against the interests of those who would make fair uses of a mark online, such as for comment, criticism, parody, and news reporting.” As described in more detail below, the Defendants obtained ownership of domain names which are either identical or confusingly similar to trademarks and tradenames held by the Plaintiffs. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 9:07 am by MBettman
White, the 2002 decision that changed the landscape in judicial elections by giving judges and judicial candidates more free speech (and some say unwisely so): “ I am concerned that, even aside from what judicial candidates may say while campaigning, the very practice of electing judges undermines this interest. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 8:44 am by Eric Goldman
” It would not surprise me if the Ohio legislature takes a greater interest in the concurrence. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 7:02 am by MBettman
McGowan was asked by her CTC patients and staff to continue this practice, which she felt constituted insurance fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.47. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 1:01 pm by Bexis
  Since there were too many cases of interest to blog about separately, we’re doing the next best thing, which is to give our readers a rundown of what’s left on the agenda.Although the word “preemption” was never uttered in the opinion, the decision in Bennett v. [read post]
30 Jun 2019, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
  Mr Wright confirmed that he has issued a Public Interest Intervention Notice (PIIN) and he has asked the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom to conduct investigations and report their findings by 23 August. [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 7:01 am by MBettman
Thus, the Third District held that Rasawehr’s conduct was done for the illegitimate purposes proscribed by R.C. 2903.211 and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 4:42 pm
Accordingly, the court erred when it applied R.C. 2950.031 to appellant, and his first assignment of error is sustained. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 9:14 pm by cdw
Gardner’s contention that this court may set aside the procedural rules of the PCRA in the interests of justice and are unpersuaded that the interests of justice require us to engage in the scope of review that he requests. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:57 am by MBettman
Sheward, 86 Ohio St. 3d 451 (1999) (Plaintiff may bring an action without satisfying traditional standing requirements in the rare and extraordinary instance where the public interest is at stake; outlining public-right doctrine.) [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 10:22 am by Colin Miller
Interpreting the rape shield statute to exclude evidence of past sexual abuse does not further these state interests. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 9:09 am by MBettman
“Absence is Not Acquiescence” The better option under the circumstances presented here would have been to deny the motion to withdraw, and have the lawyer represent his client’s interests as best he could, given his obligation to protect the rights of his client. [read post]
23 May 2013, 4:00 am by Administrator
As is often the case, however, the process is perhaps of more interest than the resolution. [read post]