Search for: "Fast v. Fast"
Results 4241 - 4260
of 6,850
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm
The Fourth Circuit said “not so fast. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 2:36 am
Court of Appeal finds no reason to swipe right in MATCH v MUZMATCH online dating disputeMatch Group, LLC v Muzmatch Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 454 (April 2023)“MATCH” is hardly a distinctive trade mark for an online dating, aka matchmaking, service. [read post]
8 Jul 2024, 4:55 am
In FDA v. [read post]
25 Feb 2019, 7:13 am
Route 1 (Baltimore Avenue) and Maryland Route 450 (Bladensburg Road), surrounded by fast-moving vehicles. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 8:14 am
Congress has always been a slow ship to turn; foreign relations can be fast-moving. [read post]
8 Feb 2014, 10:36 am
Her wish list—UK Patents Court, 3 month fast track to (c) litigation. [read post]
19 Nov 2022, 11:38 am
State v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 10:41 am
Bement & Sons v. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 4:00 am
For example, State A shouldn't be able to regulate how fast its licensed drivers drive while in other states. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 2:19 pm
KALTENBACHER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 3:25 pm
It's not every day that the IPKat starts to peruse a judgment and finds himself reading a set of FAQs, but today was that day, in Sun Microsystems Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd and another [2009] EWHC 2992 (Pat), decided last week by Mr Justice Kitchin in the Chancery Division, England and Wales. [read post]
23 May 2022, 4:00 am
On May 12, 2022 the British Columbia Court of Appeal issued reasons in the case of: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 6:38 am
Thermal Design, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 5:00 am
A recitation of the facts in Jesinoski v. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 8:36 am
The case, though listed for four hours on the fast track, came on well into the afternoon. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 9:49 am
As I said on previous occasions, there will be four Samsung v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 6:01 pm
Wednesday in the case of Bullcoming v. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 7:55 pm
Bilski v. [read post]
