Search for: "Does 1 - 41"
Results 4001 - 4020
of 4,702
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jan 2010, 1:03 pm
In doing so the Court made some useful comments about the above areas of law. 1. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 5:55 am
S. ____ (1/25/2010) merely remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion in Melendez-Diaz. [read post]
24 Jan 2010, 11:26 am
I love getting these email updates as of late from Linda's brother-in-law: Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 9:46:41 AM Subject: Linda Rivera Continued Improvement 1-23-2010 @ 9:45am PST Linda continues to improve, slowly, but surely. [read post]
22 Jan 2010, 1:05 pm
Rule 41 does not discuss the potential content of a reply brief other than to note that the reply brief “shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other evidence. 37 C.F.R. [read post]
22 Jan 2010, 12:01 pm
That includes $1 billion promised to public schools and preschool programs, and nearly $800 million owed to universities and community colleges. [read post]
20 Jan 2010, 6:00 am
(4) Did the person refuse to take a screening test provided for by section 169A.41 (preliminary screening test)? [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 2:35 pm
Rul. 87-41, 1987-1 C.B. 269 (quoting language from Treas. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 5:23 am
., 41 F.3d 1103 (7th Cir. 1994) (applying Illinois law); Crossfield v. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
C-1-07-317, 2009 U.S. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 2:31 am
CUSTOMS Logo Barred by Sections 2(a) and 2(b)Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion:Precedential No. 46: TTAB Finds Two "ANTHONY'S" Marks Confusingly Similar for Pizza RestaurantsPrecedential No. 44: TTAB Decides "CAB CALLOWAY" Priority Dispute, Rules that Personal Names Are Inherently DistinctivePrecedential No. 43: TTAB Enters Partial Summary Judgment in 2(d) "VUDU" OppositionPrecedential No. 41: Applicant Loses Third-Party Registration Battle, TTAB… [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 6:49 am
” (Edmond, at pp. 41–42.) [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 10:41 pm
Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1, 7 (Decker) [because dismissal of attempted murder charges “was based on undisputed facts,” it constituted “a legal conclusion subject to independent review on appeal”].)The trial court? [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 8:31 am
Does this mean that, except for the millions of houses held by banks, the rest of us are in pricing equilibrium? [read post]
1 Jan 2010, 3:30 pm
Wright, 41 N.Y.2d 172 [1976]). [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 3:44 am
TTAB Affirms 2(d) Refusal of "AUGUSTINER" for Beer in View of Identical Mark for Same Goods TTAB Summarily Cancels "PLAID" Registration Under Section 2(d) AUSTINUTS Seeks Review of TTAB 2(d) Decision in Austin Federal District Court Precedential No. 46: TTAB Finds Two "ANTHONY'S" Marks Confusingly Similar for Pizza Restaurants Precedential No. 44: TTAB Decides "CAB CALLOWAY" Priority Dispute, Rules that Personal Names Are Inherently Distinctive TTAB… [read post]
30 Dec 2009, 9:35 pm
City Weekly wrote about the case earlier this year [see “Wheels of Justice,” April 1]. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 7:10 am
What does all of this get us? [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 11:08 am
Broken into its component parts, the paragraph does four things: 1. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 10:00 am
Article 7 1. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 4:41 am
Federal warrants issued by Maine Superior Court judges are valid under Rule 41. [read post]