Search for: "Wells v. Place" Results 3881 - 3900 of 31,998
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Mar 2022, 8:15 am by Matthew Brady
Hazmat trucks and tankers haul gas or liquid cargo as well as flammable or explosive solids. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
The State's immunity waiver applies equally to its municipal subdivisions, including cities (see Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69, 75 [2011]; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189, 195 [1978]). [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
The State's immunity waiver applies equally to its municipal subdivisions, including cities (see Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69, 75 [2011]; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189, 195 [1978]). [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 3:44 am by Peter Mahler
Miami Beach v McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., 120 AD3d 1052, 1055; see World Ambulette Transp., Inc. v Lee, 161 AD3d 1028; Matter of Pokoik v 575 Realties, Inc., 143 AD3d 487). [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 2:17 am by Alyson Poole (AU)
The answer has recently been summarised in Viceroy Cayman Limited v Anthony Otto Syrowatka [2021] ATMO 159 (Viceroy v Syrowatka), stating “[i]t is well established that ownership of a trade mark is established either by authorship and prior use, or by the combination of authorship, the filing of the application and an intention to use or authorise use”. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 2:17 am by Alyson Poole (AU)
The answer has recently been summarised in Viceroy Cayman Limited v Anthony Otto Syrowatka [2021] ATMO 159 (Viceroy v Syrowatka), stating “[i]t is well established that ownership of a trade mark is established either by authorship and prior use, or by the combination of authorship, the filing of the application and an intention to use or authorise use”. [read post]
27 Mar 2022, 8:36 pm by Ray Giblett (AU) and Timothy Chan (AU)
    safekeeping and/or administration of virtual assets or instruments enabling control over crypto assets; and v. [read post]
25 Mar 2022, 6:20 am by Riana Harvey
This was quickly dismissed by the Judge, stating that the Hearing Officer had properly concluded that there was a low degree of conceptual similarity and that no point of law was to be found there.Turning to the second Ground of appeal, it was submitted that the independency principle had not been applied properly as per Canon v MGM. [read post]