Search for: "State v. Tate"
Results 361 - 380
of 404
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm
United States. [read post]
11 Mar 2018, 11:31 am
Co. v. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 11:48 pm
Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Plc & Anor (1709 Blog) (IP Whiteboard) The chips are down in spud-separator shoot-off – EWCA judgment in Grimme Landmaschinenfabrik GmbH & Co KG v Derek Scott (trading as Scotts Potato Machinery) (IPKat) (EPLAW) Tate & Lyle v Roquette Frères: meticulous verbal analysis? [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 4:31 am
State Bar of Arizona), "[s]tates have a compelling interest in the practice of professions within their boundaries, and . . . they have broad power to establish standards for licensing practitioners and regulating the practice of professions. [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 10:59 am
Bell v. [read post]
26 Sep 2008, 11:45 pm
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: WIPO General Assembly opens: New Director-General delivers acceptance speech (IPRoo) (IAM) (WIPO) (WIPO) (WIPO) (IPKat) (WIPO) (Intellectual Property Watch) (Intellectual Property Watch) (Managing Intellectual Property) (WIPO) (IP Menu News) CAFC: 'Point of novelty' design test thrown out; the value of amicus briefs: Egyptian Goddess, Inc… [read post]
28 Mar 2007, 9:47 pm
" State v. [read post]
1 Mar 2008, 11:33 am
" United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2023, 2:23 pm
Ginsberg v. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 4:43 am
This means that if a departing partner takes a contingent fee case and subsequently litigates it to settlement or verdict, the dissolved firm is entitled to the value of the case at the date of dissolution, with interest, or, “[s]tated conversely, the lawyer must remit to his former firm the settlement value, less that amount attributable to the lawyer’s efforts after the firm’s dissolution” (Murov v Ades, 12 AD3d 654, 656 [2d Dept 2004]). [read post]
9 Jan 2025, 7:38 am
In a later case of nuisance by interference with the enjoyment of residential property (Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4), the Supreme Court made it clear that there is no need, or any justification, for invoking human rights law when the common law has already developed tried and tested principles, under the tort of nuisance, which determine when liability arises for this type of legal wrong [16]. [read post]
10 Oct 2024, 10:11 am
B330281 (Sept. 30, 2024) and Liu v. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 9:27 am
(Promote the Progress) N D Illinois one step closer to adopting patent rules (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) Innovate Texas Foundation launched to accelerate state’s IP commercialisation (Technology Transfer Tactics) Special Masters a [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 4:00 am
Yahoo News – Ken Dilanian and Frank Thorp V (NBC News) | Published: 9/27/2023 U.S. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 4:30 am
Thomas v. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 1:12 pm
See Collins v. [read post]
4 Nov 2023, 7:07 am
Pix Credit Christina Quarles, Casually Cruel (2018); Tate ModernThe second touches on the curation of the technologies of sex, sexual identity, and gender. [read post]
9 Feb 2020, 4:05 pm
Last Week in the Courts On 4 to 7 February 2020 Warby J heard the trial in the case of Sube v News Group Newspapers. [read post]
7 May 2007, 9:54 am
Dru Stevenson, Special Solicitude for States: Massachusetts v. [read post]
21 Feb 2022, 2:37 pm
" A prior panel precedent is "undermined," we explained in United States v. [read post]
