Search for: "State v. Mark T. Smith"
Results 361 - 380
of 902
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Feb 2007, 6:32 am
The following very informative piece was written by North Carolina family law attorney Mark Sullivan and appeared on the Solosez listserv. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 9:35 am
Before explaining the court's analysis, I can't refrain - as a New Yorker - from pointing out that this beautifully and clearly written opinion by Justice Mark Cady stands as a strong rebuke to the bizarre plurality opinion produced by Judge Robert Smith of the New York Court of Appeals in the 2006 ruling in Hernandez v. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 6:30 am
But I don’t think I would extrapolate as much as Mark does. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 5:01 am
The FreeCycle Network (IPBiz) (IP Spotlight) District Court E D North Carolina grants defendant summary judgment on federal and state law trade mark infringement claims in The Daniel Group v. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 10:18 am
Americans v. [read post]
25 Dec 2015, 12:08 pm
In contrast, presiding over Smith v Obama, U.S. [read post]
16 Jul 2007, 5:56 am
The only way one can claim privacy grounds is if the state constitution or some statute supports the argument because the Fourth Amendment won't under Smith v. [read post]
11 Dec 2024, 10:15 pm
I won't even try to explain it here. [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
This post is from the Reed Smith (and now we should add Cozen) side of the blog only, as Dechert is involved in the litigation to be discussed.You’ll have to forgive us – we’re weird that way – but we found the opinion in Carter v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
The nominally private charter or status of the entities in question is not determinative, however (see Smith, 92 NY2d at 713-716; Holden v Board of Trustees of Cornell Univ., 80 AD2d 378, 380-381 [3d Dept 1981]). [read post]
9 Mar 2023, 3:59 am
” That’s more than a little strange, and bear in mind that “[t]he Board, being thoroughly familiar with current case law, will apply the correct case law,” In re Active Ankle Sys., Inc., 83 U.S.P.Q.2d 1532, 1534 (T.T.A.B. 2007), and that before issuing a precedential decision such as Uman, “[t]he Board engages in thorough internal review,” DC Comics v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 6:30 am
At the Associated Press, Mark Sherman discusses the cert. petition in Reichle v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 3:55 am
: Samuel Smith Old Brewery v Philip Lee (trading as Cropton Brewery) (IPKat) Rhythmix – a band without a name (IPKat) PCC Page 42: Octopus-watching continues: giant squid v small fry .. and the prospect of settlement (PatLit) Past historic 1: how patents for invention came from Venice to England (IPKat) United States US General Federal Circuit Statistics – FY 2011 (Patently-O) US Patent Reform The estoppel disconnect of inter partes… [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 8:24 am
AT&T Corp., 550 U.S.437 (2007); see also Brown v. [read post]
18 Mar 2014, 9:18 am
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog. [read post]
30 Aug 2021, 7:42 am
May God save the United States of America, the state of Florida, and this honorable court. [read post]
1 Dec 2013, 4:52 pm
There is, sadly, no Tercero round.United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 7:22 am
Even in the legis. history, Congress discusses White-Smith v. [read post]
31 Jul 2009, 4:42 am
Taukpoint Realty Corp., 302 A.D.2d 433, 754 N.Y.S.2d 899 (2nd Dep't 2003)); Century Pacific, Inc. v. [read post]
16 May 2008, 7:21 am
O’Donnell, No. 07-0697, and Marks v. [read post]
