Search for: "Sales, C. v. Sales, S."
Results 4041 - 4060
of 6,064
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Dec 2011, 2:45 am
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2011, 5:02 am
December 8, 2011).* Defendant’s wife’s consent to seize and search a computer was voluntary on the totality. [read post]
10 Dec 2011, 9:55 am
Venkat's recent post on Facebook v. [read post]
10 Dec 2011, 6:20 am
In the mid-80's, there were Operation Pisces and Operation C-Chase. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 3:52 pm
’” Slip op. at 10, quoting California v. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 3:52 pm
’” Slip op. at 10, quoting California v. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 7:55 am
(C), the third-biggest U.S. bank, is shrinking a team of traders who deal in “hybrid” products as Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit cuts Wall Street jobs, two people familiar with the matter said. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 11:32 am
For some reason, it was the Oxy-C cases that litigated this.That’s all we know. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 8:58 pm
First, the fair dealing discussion that dominated the Bell v. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 3:00 am
Windsor Lambiotte LLC., D2011-1601 (WIPO November 8, 2011) in which the corporation’s rights were recognized but rejected the individual Complainant’s proof of any right to her name, although she has solid credentials; and Ndamukong Suh v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 7:17 am
Locate.Plus.Com, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 2:48 am
The foundational case is Lyus v Prowsa Developments [1982] 1 WLR 1044, but, as Lloyd LJ noted, there were three key points about that case: (a) Ms Lyus’ right didn’t bind the bank, which sold the property; (b) Ms Lyus’ right was specifically identified in the bank’s contract of sale; and (c) Ms Lyus could not have done any more to protect her right. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 2:48 am
The foundational case is Lyus v Prowsa Developments [1982] 1 WLR 1044, but, as Lloyd LJ noted, there were three key points about that case: (a) Ms Lyus’ right didn’t bind the bank, which sold the property; (b) Ms Lyus’ right was specifically identified in the bank’s contract of sale; and (c) Ms Lyus could not have done any more to protect her right. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 2:00 am
People v. [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 9:56 am
Supreme Court decision in Stern v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 3:20 pm
See id at 587–88 (“Cunningham’s legal dictionary, cited above, gave as an example of its usage a sentence unrelated to military affairs (‘Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, & c. and not bear other arms’)”). [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 1:34 pm
Id. at § 227(b)(1)(C). [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 5:11 am
See Inman v. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 4:27 am
Rosenbaum v. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 3:40 am
" This morning the Court of Justice gave its ruling in Joined Cases C 446/09 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd, Far East Sourcing Ltd, Röhlig Hong Kong Ltd, Röhlig Belgium NV and Nokia Corporation and and C 495/09 Nokia Corporation v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs, International Trademark Association intervening. [read post]
