Search for: "State v. Stone" Results 441 - 460 of 2,193
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Apr 2021, 6:40 am
On March 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Ocegueda v. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 11:16 am by Suzanna Sherry
Maine (an earlier state sovereign immunity case) and District of Columbia v. [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 9:00 am
Henry, 155 Misc 2d 192, 193-194 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1993], quoting Stone v. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 1:49 am
  As the ancient proverb counsels, “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones”.Google is entitled to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. [read post]
22 May 2023, 7:46 am by Eric Goldman
Before the state bar could reach that conclusion, they would have to do more work to validate that the 236 entries are indeed misdirected, something this court punted on. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 7:48 am by Eric Goldman
The only difference here is that, instead of Peninsula’s search results directly stating the name Peninsula, they include the part name. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 4:31 pm
Supreme Court some years to establish its authority over state courts with respect to federal law, a feat accomplished in 1816 in Martin v. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 4:16 pm by Chanelle Wong
The policy stated that such work would be considered a conflict of interest and that non-compliance could result in termination of employment. [read post]
11 Jul 2007, 11:22 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Aziz v Aziz & Ors Rev 1 [2007] EWCA Civ 712 (11 July 2007) Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 688 (11 July 2007) Adelson & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd. [2007] EWCA Civ 701 (09 July 2007) MM, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 687 (06 July 2007) Togher v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions… [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 8:43 am by Eric Goldman
In support of that conclusion, the court makes this murky statement: “courts in this Circuit have repeatedly held that a plaintiff may state a claim under the Lanham Act where the defendant (1) interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to offer its own commercial services, and/or (2) used the Internet. [read post]