Search for: "BLUNT v. STATE"
Results 401 - 420
of 871
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 May 2009, 10:54 pm
The Second Appellate District engaged in a very important analysis of the various kinds of circumstantial evidence of discrimination in Johnson v. [read post]
12 Sep 2011, 12:16 pm
More speculatively, another very recent decision, United States v. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 4:38 pm
The Sixth District Court of Appeal recently presided over such a conflict in Save Panoche Valley v. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 8:36 am
He has just begun appealing his conviction and sentence.The case is Kennedy v. [read post]
24 Oct 2008, 9:37 am
See People v. [read post]
25 Apr 2023, 1:11 pm
See also ROONEY V. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 5:49 am
The IPKat is really disappointed that this action is being brought in the United States and not in Europe following last month's Intel v CPM ruling (see IPKat here and here), where counsel on both sides could indulge in endless argument as to the state of mind of the relevant consumer, the likelihood of confusion and the extent to which the use of the mark on the t-shirt might be expected to affect the economic activity of consumers of the claimant's rolling… [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 6:40 pm
Brain Research Labs, LLC v. [read post]
27 Dec 2007, 7:09 am
Blunt v. [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 12:20 pm
Google and Twitter v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 9:12 pm
Dukes, and Turner v. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 7:39 pm
In Thacker v. [read post]
16 Jan 2016, 4:13 am
It is styled, Judy Hagen v. [read post]
24 Jul 2022, 4:00 am
23‑24, citing Shell Canada Ltd. v. [read post]
28 May 2023, 4:00 am
Criminal Law: DelayR. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 4:17 pm
" Kinney v. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 7:35 am
State v. [read post]
19 May 2011, 8:01 am
S213(3) states that the Court must make an order either returning the deposit or that it be paid to the custodial scheme while section 214(4) states that the court must also order payment of three times the deposit to the tenant. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 7:40 am
They follow, and do not lead, state courts. [read post]
4 May 2010, 3:00 pm
Raich (21:07), in which the Court affirmed that the “Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail”; and McIntyre v. [read post]
