Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 5001 - 5020
of 21,686
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Sep 2019, 12:24 pm
Infringement proceedings involving an EU trade mark must generally be brought before the courts of the member state in which a defendant is domiciled (Regulation 207/2009/EC, Article 97(1)). [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 11:01 am
The bill creating the greatest buzz has been AB 5, which would codify the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 9:56 am
Its deterrent effect is the same as if the State were to fine them for this speech. . . . [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 4:12 pm
Rather, the employer’s position was typical of the “hard bargaining” between the parties, marked by “various states of deadlock for years,” during which both sides only made “minor concessions. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 9:06 am
Sarnoff, BIO v. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 9:37 am
The details of the complaint remain vague, but Schiff stated that it was filed by an individual in the intelligence community and determined by Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson to be credible and a matter of “urgent concern. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 7:56 am
Ritchie and Kay Whitlock Race and the Death Penalty: The Legacy of “McCleskey v. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 7:40 am
Kansas City family law attorney Mark A. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 9:06 am
The issues were: (1) whether ECHR Article 8 was engaged; (2) whether the SWP’s activities were “in accordance with the law”; and (3) whether the SWP’s activities were “necessary in a democratic society” in the interests of one of the objectives stated in Article 8(2), in accordance with the four-part test set out by the UK Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 8:00 am
O’Donnell v. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 7:30 am
This first week marks the first argument sitting for Justice Busby and the first for Justice Bland since 2006, when she was chosen to sit by designation in a case that was re-argued after two of the regular justices had recused themselves (Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 4:30 am
” Copyright Litigation Handbook § 9:9 (Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim ) (2010). [read post]
14 Sep 2019, 5:59 pm
Chanel, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Sep 2019, 2:10 pm
New Mexico, though, just rejected that rule a couple of weeks ago (in State v. [read post]
14 Sep 2019, 7:38 am
This week also marked the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. [read post]
14 Sep 2019, 6:00 am
United States, which reawakened Commerce Clause review of federal legislation yet hardly ushered in a new era of robust judicial review; and District of Columbia v. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 2:33 pm
See Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 11:26 am
Schiedmayer Celesta GmbH v. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:42 am
By Mark S. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:31 am
United States, Timbs v. [read post]
