Search for: "US v. Coats"
Results 461 - 480
of 1,075
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Nov 2010, 4:30 am
Corp. v. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 9:00 pm
http://katzjustice.com It seems that so called "drug recognition experts" are taught that a green coating under one's tongue indicates recent marijuana use. [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 2:38 pm
Tokidoki, LLC v. [read post]
30 Oct 2007, 11:28 am
The crime scene described at the beginning of United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:30 pm
Citing decisions such as L'Oréal v Bellure, Trevor observed that concepts like "unfair advantage" and "without due cause" -- which do exist in European statute law -- receive little attention, while terms that have no legal basis such as "parasitism and "riding on the coat-tails" do. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 7:24 am
In this week’s case (Lee v. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 2:54 pm
(Eugene Volokh) I just ran across a procedural decision in this litigation — Blackden v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 5:13 am
Alpha Pro Tech, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 5:14 am
The tank had been properly installed and used as intended; experts agreed that internal corrosion caused a hole (the tank lacked a protective interior coating). [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 5:09 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
29 Nov 2016, 11:31 am
From Comcast v. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 7:15 am
publishers’ right in online publications | German Court: TV show may not use ‘bloopers’ from other network without permission | US Congress considers extending copyright term | Swedish ISP Telenor will voluntary block The Pirate Bay | You don't think that street names matter: Try telling your grandchildren that your fancy office is on "Crustacean Street" | Stay of injunction in public interest: Edwards Lifesciences v… [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 10:33 am
Indeed, while under Article 52(1)(a) CTMR the application date is the seminal moment for the examination invalidity grounds, examiners and Courts are free to consider any material subsequent to the date of application insofar as it enables conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date [see the CJEU’s orders in Alcon v OHIM, in Case C-192/03P, and Torresan v OHIM, in Case C-5/10]. [read post]
21 Jan 2012, 1:52 pm
The post Ridiculous Trademark Opposition of the Week – Glad Products v. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 3:08 am
v. [read post]
1 Sep 2012, 7:03 am
The legal rule that excludes the use of illegally obtained evidence in a trial is called the Exclusionary Rule. [read post]
23 May 2024, 6:00 am
While the matter was proceeding before a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ), Timperio filed a negligence action in federal court against BLH and the store that sold Bello the rifle he used in the shooting. [read post]
23 May 2024, 6:00 am
While the matter was proceeding before a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ), Timperio filed a negligence action in federal court against BLH and the store that sold Bello the rifle he used in the shooting. [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:00 am
.), or where the arbitrator " 'manifestly disregard[s]' the substantive law applicable to the parties' dispute" (Schiferle v Capital Fence Co., Inc., 155 AD3d 122, 127 [4th Dept 2017], quoting Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479 [2006], cert dismissed 548 US 940 [2006]; see Matter of Gerber v Goldberg Segalla LLP, 199 AD3d 1354, 1355 [4th Dept 2021]). [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:00 am
.), or where the arbitrator " 'manifestly disregard[s]' the substantive law applicable to the parties' dispute" (Schiferle v Capital Fence Co., Inc., 155 AD3d 122, 127 [4th Dept 2017], quoting Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479 [2006], cert dismissed 548 US 940 [2006]; see Matter of Gerber v Goldberg Segalla LLP, 199 AD3d 1354, 1355 [4th Dept 2021]). [read post]
