Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 401 - 420
of 21,505
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2024, 10:02 am
On Monday, February 12, 2024, Professor Mark Graber published a post on Balkinization about the February 8, 2024 oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
“The time has come to blow the whistle on the Holmes Devise History of The Supreme Court,” a young professor of law at the University of Wisconsin named Mark V. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 7:11 am
Facts: This case (Zavislak v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 4:04 am
., Thorpe v Cerbco, Inc., CIV. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 1:02 am
On 14 February 2024 there will be a strike out/summary judgment application in the case of Chowdhury-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department KB-2023-003368. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 7:17 am
Moving to another state clearly does require some kind of action with the court. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 4:24 am
Further, the Court stated that it is an established principle of settled case-law that, as a general rule, the submission of facts and evidence by the parties remains possible after the expiry of the relevant time limits, and the EUIPO is not prohibited from taking account of such facts and evidence (mobile.de v EUIPO, C‑418/16 P).In this case, it was accepted by both parties that Mr Noah had submitted the first evidence of use of the Mark within the time limit… [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 9:42 pm
” Eisenberg v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 2:26 pm
On a motion by President Shrum, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the suit for lack of standing, ruling that the United States Supreme Court in Summers v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 2:12 pm
But these arguments miss their mark. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 11:37 am
[This is the second installment in a series about the oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 7:24 am
” As stated by Justice Rehnquist in his concurring opinion in Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 6:06 am
So, for example, in BMW of North America v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 6:00 am
In 2012, the case of Louboutin v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 4:54 am
The doctrine applies “where the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action, and the party who is being estopped had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action” (Simmons v Trans Express Inc., 37 NY3d 107, 112 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Molnar v JRL S. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 3:00 am
See State v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 6:40 pm
Taamneh and Gonzalez v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am
Lash's response to the Amar brothers' amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 7:53 am
State v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 7:47 pm
Tomorrow, on February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
