Search for: "Plas v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 113
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2012, 3:42 pm
We have discussed in previous posts the Supreme Court’s decision in Pliva v. [read post]
11 Jun 2008, 12:06 pm
” Sinclair v. [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 3:10 pm
In Deutsch v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 4:30 am
It did so in the case Conte v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 1:58 pm
Cornett v. [read post]
21 Nov 2007, 12:33 am
"
State v. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 5:33 am
State Department approved three arms packages for Taiwan. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 7:14 am
In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
20 Jun 2015, 4:15 am
., et al. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 7:36 am
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. [read post]
6 May 2013, 2:23 pm
(citing Kendall v. [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 8:58 am
In Parrella v. [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 8:58 am
In Parrella v. [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 8:58 am
In Parrella v. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 1:31 pm
Plaintiff's attempt to plead around the PLA by seeking only economic damages made no difference; the case was still governed exclusively by the PLA, and plaintiff has been unable to state a claim. [read post]
10 May 2010, 4:30 am
" Fellner v. [read post]
17 May 2017, 9:57 pm
When the Option Deed was terminated, PLA claimed it was still entitled to use the Chilean PINK LADY mark because the relevant clause of the deed stated that the licence would “last in perpetuity subject only to the quality control provisions contained herein. [read post]
17 May 2017, 9:57 pm
When the Option Deed was terminated, PLA claimed it was still entitled to use the Chilean PINK LADY mark because the relevant clause of the deed stated that the licence would “last in perpetuity subject only to the quality control provisions contained herein. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 9:18 am
See Brown v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 1:05 pm
As readers of this blog know, I wrote extensively last year on the important, and largely muddled, opinion in Reliable Fire Equipment v. [read post]
