Search for: "State v. Good Bear"
Results 4701 - 4720
of 5,195
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2009, 8:00 am
As for the Blasius doctrine, the decision in Portnoy v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 5:18 am
Rivera v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 5:15 am
This gets a little technical, so bear with me. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 4:36 am
It sure sounds good though.Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what does this mean for Texas? [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 4:29 am
Although this case law is dated, it is still "good law. [read post]
23 Jun 2009, 8:01 am
C.S. 4327 stating otherwise. [read post]
NY Federal Court: Availability of Consequential Damages Not Limited to Commercial Property Insurance
22 Jun 2009, 2:10 am
In Woodworth v. [read post]
20 Jun 2009, 3:58 pm
Lameman (discussed here and here) stated as follows:The summary judgment rule serves an important purpose in the civil litigation system. [read post]
20 Jun 2009, 9:58 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Jun 2009, 6:50 am
Finally, I would draw attention to another approach, one that is very well argued by the good Fernando Barrio. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 2:26 pm
For example, some states require the individual to show — in advance — that the evidence would have a direct bearing on the case. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
Having laid out the jurisprudence, Justice Newbould states: "I need not decide in this case whether the passage from Vout v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 1:46 am
It seems though that the Court of Appeal in Arsenal got it right when it said that the effect of Holterhoff was to exclude descriptive use only.]The Compartive Advertising DirectiveIn relation to Art.3a(1)(h) (comparative advertising must not present goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods or services bearing a protected trade mark or trade name), this didn't require the goods to be counterfeit, nor did it require the advert to be misleading for… [read post]
14 Jun 2009, 1:07 am
A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal, Bode v. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 4:05 pm
Similarly, the right to have a verdict in a medical malpractice case that accounts for inflation is recognized by the court in Nguyen v. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 11:55 am
Commissioner Rosch v. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 10:34 am
At that point Easterbrook noted that the Ninth Circuit, quoting Washington v. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 11:22 am
After stating the amounts or percentages allowable on sums distributed by the trustee that are less than one million dollars, §326 says that the court can award the trustee “reasonable compensation not to exceed 3 percent of such moneys in excess of $1,000,000, upon all monies disbursed or turned over in the case to parties in interest, excluding the debtor [i.e., excluding Madoff]. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 10:00 pm
The first question was whether the issue was one of substantive state law (the state of Florida), or a procedural matter under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 11:58 am
This is important because the movant bears the initial burden in such a case under Lepis v. [read post]
