Search for: "Sees v. Sees"
Results 5081 - 5100
of 121,992
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Aug 2023, 3:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 2:32 am
The defendants asserted that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dastar Corp. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 2:21 am
As explained in a 2020 CRS Report and a 2020 GAO Report, until the 2020 passage of the CARES Act (see our blog post here), amending a monograph was challenging because “the agency’s ability to update and finalize monographs in response to safety issues and to reflect new scientific information was limited by the rulemaking process the agency was required to follow, as well as insufficient resources. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 12:15 am
” Following the guidance in Brown v. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 12:01 am
Mbatha v. [read post]
20 Aug 2023, 5:56 pm
SFFA v. [read post]
20 Aug 2023, 2:23 pm
See footnote 6. [read post]
20 Aug 2023, 2:20 pm
Case Citation: Hicks v. [read post]
20 Aug 2023, 12:01 pm
See, e.g., McCutcheon v. [read post]
20 Aug 2023, 5:20 am
As IPKat readers are surely aware, his fame extends well beyond the art world, given that Koons has contributed as litigant to some of the most interesting copyright case law around the world [see, eg, IPKat coverage here].A few days ago, it was the turn of the Italian Supreme Court to rule (decision 23935/2023 Koons v Garrone) in a case involving him and a copy of an artwork – specifically: a porcelain sculpture titled The Serpents – that he has refused to acknowledge… [read post]
20 Aug 2023, 4:15 am
See Mouton v. [read post]
19 Aug 2023, 4:49 pm
You won't see it coming either. [read post]
19 Aug 2023, 8:17 am
See also R.A.V. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2023, 4:34 am
See Hebert v. [read post]
19 Aug 2023, 3:57 am
Sh. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 7:37 pm
See Price v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 1:12 pm
[1] See also See Bearden v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 12:39 pm
By Dennis Crouch Thaler v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 6:13 am
" Likewise, Rosenblatt v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 5:07 am
To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action, or would not have incurred any damages but for the attorney’s negligence (see Rudolf v. [read post]