Search for: "HOWE v. STATE" Results 4981 - 5000 of 80,966
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Aug 2012, 10:40 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
Samsung involves “design” and “utility” patents relating to how the iPhone looks to and works for users, while Apple v. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 5:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Channel Fabrics, Inc. v Skwiersky, Alpert & Bressler LLP 2023 NY Slip Op 06471 [222 AD3d 512] December 19, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department illustrates the varying levels of service that accountants provide, and how the all important accountant’s retainer agreement can limit liability. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 7:37 am by Kali Borkoski
At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh reports that the Court has called for a response from the state in Herrera v. [read post]
3 Mar 2023, 6:21 am by Ben Sperry
There are no laws against false speech in general, nor can there be, since the Supreme Court declared such speech was protected in United States v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 3:24 am
Recognizing same-sex marriage for the purpose of qualifying for spousal benefits in the New York State's employees’ health insurance plan [NYSHIP]Lewis v New York State Dept. of Civ. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 7:16 am
From the IPKat's charming and erudite friend Kaori Minami comes news that the keenly-awaited judgment of the Tokyo High Court in Apple v Samsung has just been released (the judgment was handed down on 28 February). [read post]
30 Aug 2014, 1:35 pm by Jeff Gittins
Yesterday the Utah Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Southam v. [read post]
10 Oct 2007, 11:19 am
It was apparent that, if the case of Medellin v. [read post]
15 Mar 2007, 6:33 am
Nov. 30, 2006) (wholesale price definition insufficient to confer Grable federal jurisdiction); State of Wisconsin v. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 3:07 am
The court stated that claim construction implies construing the use of drafting techniques (Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 1:09 pm by Orin Kerr
The case worked its way up the Utah state court system as a dispute on how the “attenuation doctrine” of the exclusionary rule should apply. [read post]