Search for: "Little v. Little" Results 4321 - 4340 of 39,458
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jun 2010, 12:17 pm by Venkat
Another recent reminder of the perils of putting stuff in emails came from the Viacom v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 6:34 am by Antitrust Today
A day before Judge Brody’s ruling, the Third Circuit vacated a $295 million settlement in the De Beers case, Sullivan v. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 11:15 am by admin
Sources: Washington Post – Parents wrestle with rear-facing car seat advice MSNBC – New advice: Tots safest in rear-facing car seats until age 2: In front-facing car seats, a crash can jerk child’s head, causing spinal cord injuries CNN Health – AAP: Toddlers in rear-facing seat until 2 *v [read post]
29 May 2018, 7:21 am by Duets Guest Blogger
A little upfront time and money can save you a ton of heartache and cash at a later point (if, for example, the name you decide to use is challenged by someone who is already using a similar name). [read post]
3 Oct 2007, 10:00 pm
The issue is not unique to the pharmaceutical industry, but the pressure is a little more acute because of the absolute monopoly in the product enjoyed by the innovator company just prior to the first generic launch.In some jurisdictions, most notably the UK, a line of authorities has sprung up which requires the generic company to either obtain a declaration of non-infringement or revoke the patent prior to launch.In the ongoing global Plavix litigation, the Australian Federal Court… [read post]
12 Aug 2017, 3:54 pm by Jon Ibanez
The California Court of Appeals in the case of People v. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 9:52 am by Dennis Crouch
 To say that the petition makes little sense is perhaps over stating its value. [read post]
7 May 2009, 6:40 pm
Green Building Council Launches LEED v3- Bike Racks v. [read post]
20 Mar 2007, 6:21 pm
Here's the story of a DA named Hugh, who thought there was very little to do! [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 6:23 am by Joy Waltemath
With little fanfare, the Eighth Circuit reinstated a gender discrimination suit brought by a female store manager against a national jewelry retailer, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the male district manager who told her to step down—because she was a “single mom” in a “man’s world” and needed to “man up”—played a role in the decision to terminate her (Morrow v. [read post]