Search for: "State v. Loss" Results 4801 - 4820 of 17,503
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Nov 2018, 12:10 pm by Schachtman
Indeed, their brief in other places states their opinion that significance testing is not necessary at all: “Testing for significance, however, is often mistaken for a sine qua non of scientific inference. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 3:24 pm by David Cheifetz
The press release stated that BCE had entered into an agreement with Canada Inc. [read post]
9 Nov 2021, 9:56 pm by Riana Harvey
The opposition relied on Article 8(4) EUTMR, stating that it was entitled under the applicable law in the UK to prevent the use of the mark applied for by means of ‘extended’ passing off (a concept that shall be elaborated on below). [read post]
16 Mar 2007, 7:58 pm
For the reasons stated below, we reverse the district court with respect to the claims against Vaughn, but affirm summary judgment in favor of Lincoln. 07a0103p.06 2007/03/16 In Re: Renato Acosta v. [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 4:23 am by Edith Roberts
” Subscript offers a graphic explainer for Sveen v. [read post]
3 Jan 2017, 6:31 am by Stephen D. Rosenberg
Back n 2014, however, the United States Supreme Court rejected that test in Fifth Third Bancorp v. [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 9:01 pm by Andrew Hudson
Andrew HudsonThe High Court decision on the tariff classification of ‘Vita gummies’ and ‘Garcinia weight-loss preparation’. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 11:07 am
The amicus briefs in favor of the Petitioner in Kennedy v. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 2:57 am by Laura Sandwell
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Scotland), heard 22 – 23 January 2014. [read post]