Search for: "State v. C. G. B."
Results 421 - 440
of 2,341
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Nov 2010, 6:59 am
By Steven G. [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 8:40 am
Tortilla Factory, LLC v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 2:31 pm
Advocate General Bot has this morning issued his opinion in Case C-406/10, SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 12:55 pm
C., March 2, 2017, Flethez v. [read post]
3 Nov 2020, 11:49 am
C) Who did Judge Murray Klein lose to (tricky question). [read post]
16 Mar 2022, 7:39 pm
RUSSIAN FEDERATION)___________ALLÉGATIONS DE GÉNOCIDE AU TITRE DE LA CONVENTION POURLA PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE(UKRAINE c. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 1:55 pm
Patent No. 8,177,449• Count V for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 4:21 pm
The facts and domestic proceedings The case concerns the dismissal of a television journalist, Gábor Matúz, working for the State television company Magyar Televízió Zrt., after having revealed several censoring interventions by one of his superiors. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 7:19 am
Hoffer – Employment & Labor David V. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 6:18 am
§§ 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I), 1030(g); see WEC Carolina Energy Solutions LLC v. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 5:57 am
United States v. [read post]
5 May 2023, 9:32 am
Plaintiff also relies on United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 12:52 pm
The case is United States v. [read post]
10 May 2013, 4:42 am
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), and (h). [read post]
24 Apr 2016, 7:00 am
Some express the viewpoint that the case reached the wrong outcome, either because the Court (a) misunderstood the facts relating to the invention or patent, (b) misapplied existing § 101 principles, or (c) both. [read post]
23 Aug 2009, 3:44 pm
See also State v. [read post]
10 Jan 2015, 7:23 am
C. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 6:33 pm
See,e .g., United States v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the Town terminating the plaintiff [Employee] based on the findings and recommendation of a disciplinary hearing officer, Supreme Court [a] denied the Town's motion to dismiss the Employee petition; [b] granted Employee's petition to the extent of annulling the penalty imposed; and [c] remitting the matter to the Town for the imposition of a less severe penalty. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the Town terminating the plaintiff [Employee] based on the findings and recommendation of a disciplinary hearing officer, Supreme Court [a] denied the Town's motion to dismiss the Employee petition; [b] granted Employee's petition to the extent of annulling the penalty imposed; and [c] remitting the matter to the Town for the imposition of a less severe penalty. [read post]
