Search for: "State v. M. T."
Results 4881 - 4900
of 16,368
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2013, 9:48 am
Parts.com claims it can prove losses of $2M due to infringing keyword advertising, but I'm calling BS on that. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 4:27 am
In Alves v 152-154 W. 131st St. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 1:44 pm
I confess I’m part of the problem in that I haven’t grabbed the pitchforks either, but I’m not sure how I can best help. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 6:12 am
Briere v. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 2:54 pm
Supreme Court said it in Stern v. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 2:54 pm
Supreme Court said it in Stern v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 3:34 am
Jones.* Down the Tubes: H&M Breached Settlement Agreement by Infringing PatentJani analyses Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltd v H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 3298 (Pat), a decision that dealt with a UK patent concerning the tubular fabric in underwired garments such as brassieres.* Goodbye, good luck! [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 5:20 am
Dan Tarlock for ISCOTUSnow (video), Richard Re at Re’s Judicata, and Andrew M. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 4:15 am
Put enough exceptions next to each other and you come out with a decision like State v. [read post]
15 May 2024, 6:00 am
Cuomo v New York State Commn. on Ethics & Lobbying in Govt.2024 NY Slip Op 02568Decided on May 9, 2024Appellate Division, Third DepartmentPowers, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered:May 9, 2024CV-23-1778[*1]Andrew M. [read post]
15 May 2024, 6:00 am
Cuomo v New York State Commn. on Ethics & Lobbying in Govt.2024 NY Slip Op 02568Decided on May 9, 2024Appellate Division, Third DepartmentPowers, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered:May 9, 2024CV-23-1778[*1]Andrew M. [read post]
11 Feb 2017, 3:23 pm
State v. [read post]
16 Oct 2022, 9:02 pm
Hildebrant (in 1916), to Smiley v. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 7:19 pm
The controlling statutory law is N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 and the precedential case in the state of NJ is Baures v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 12:09 pm
See United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 3:47 am
Last week, in State v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 10:09 am
I'm talking MORALS, my friend. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 8:44 pm
” Nicholas T. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 4:15 am
Dukes, AT&T v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 2:29 pm
I’m fascinated by well-meaning folks who have tried to treat it as a “serious” statement of the law. [read post]
