Search for: "State v. Holderness" Results 4061 - 4080 of 8,247
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Mar 2022, 12:40 pm by Ernest Badway
In particular, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission has used the four-part test first developed in the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in SEC v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 8:37 am by Daniel M. Kowalski
While the bill’s authors may have had in mind those who first arrive in the United States on parole, however, the language of the bill is broad enough to cover those who use advance parole to leave and re-enter the United States while they have a pending application for an immigration benefit, most commonly an application for adjustment of status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident (green card holder). [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 7:14 pm
Plaintiffs have legally acquired the right to use Jimi Hendrix’s fame to sell their products, and they are entitled to all the rights of a trademark holder. [read post]
4 May 2017, 4:33 am by D
Section 88 of the Act sets out the requirements which focus on the suitability of the licence holder, the manager, and the management arrangements. [read post]
31 May 2009, 10:38 am
  On the other hand, in United States v. [read post]
28 Sep 2012, 7:46 am by Margot Patterson
The Supreme Court of Canada determined yesterday, in A.B. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 4:50 am
Such technologies may be freely used without the need to obtain authorization from any right holder". [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 7:21 am by Erin Miller
United States, in which the Court recently granted cert. [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 4:59 am by Roya Ghafele (OxFirst)
Cases such as Conversant vs ZTE/Huawei, Philips vs TCL, TQ Delta v ZyXel or Optis v Apple pertain equally to the licensing of standard essential patents. [read post]
14 May 2010, 4:08 pm
By Zachary Wadlé On April 19, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Costco v. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 2:53 pm
Allstate Corp., 404 F.3d 328, 331–32 (5th Cir. 2005), and Holder v. [read post]