Search for: "State v. Word"
Results 4201 - 4220
of 40,645
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Sep 2018, 1:39 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 2:46 pm
All caucus state votes have been included in my report. [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 9:36 pm
ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v MYRIAD GENETICS – an isolated decision? [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 6:47 am
But in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
Would that be reviewable by a court, given that it involves a question of the validity to state law? [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 3:42 am
An earlier domestic judgment, R v Zardad, also supported the position that a person acting on behalf of a non-State entity may be acting in an official capacity for the purposes of s 134 if the non-State entity “had a sufficient degree of organisation, a sufficient degree of actual control of an area and […] exercised the type of functions which a government or governmental organisation would exercise” [63]. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 5:12 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2016, 6:00 am
Under a long line of cases (including NFIB v. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 9:00 pm
(For more evidence of lawyerly shabbiness in earlier stages of Moore v. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 6:00 am
In other words, the plaintiff got what he paid for (the soda). [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 7:07 am
" United States v. [read post]
6 Mar 2009, 12:43 pm
United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2007, 8:46 am
A careful reading of that decision leaves unclear to what extent the broad wording is its holding as opposed to vague dicta.Unfortunately, in the not precedential decision of Williams v. [read post]
10 Jul 2024, 8:33 am
Over the years, Chevron‘s scope has been shaped through cases like United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2007, 1:59 pm
Distinguishing the 9th Circuit's approach in "United States v. [read post]
11 Sep 2024, 7:07 am
Moreover, the distinctiveness of the word component of the contested sign (i.e., ArtÍscare), and the visual, aural, and conceptual comparisons of ArtÍscare and LANCÔME led the BoA to conclude that there can be no finding of a likelihood of confusion based solely on the rose device.CopyrightEleonora Rosati evaluated the recent Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar in Kwantum v Vitra (Case C-227/23), which primarily addressed the following question: “Can… [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 9:09 am
The Appellate Division unanimously dismissed the appeal as moot, citing the expiration of the order (Matter of Veronica P. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 6:27 am
State v. [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 9:04 am
Employer Computer Monitoring Policies: Words vs. [read post]
