Search for: "Sell v. Sell"
Results 5121 - 5140
of 23,636
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Feb 2011, 10:34 am
There are probably other systems that effectively limit indigent appeals, though Halbert v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 2:28 pm
Painting of Pushkin by Orest Kiprensky (public domain) From Zueger v. [read post]
21 Apr 2007, 11:19 am
This rare second vote is designed to empower shareholders to protect themselves from senior management's natural conflict of interest when negotiating an agreement to buy or sell a company while simultaneously negotiating a personal compensation package.An amendment during mark-up by Mr. [read post]
5 Aug 2021, 8:10 am
GlaxoSmithKline v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 1:34 pm
Case Background On April 24, 2010, Nicolas Castagnola was caught selling alcohol to two minors. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 3:00 pm
But at the end of last Term in PLIVA v. [read post]
2 May 2015, 7:42 am
Case Background David Maistros, law director and prosecutor of Twinsburg in Summit County, charged Appellant Nicholas Castagnola with selling alcohol to minors. [read post]
4 Sep 2017, 12:56 am
Sharma v. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 6:55 pm
Friday, the first day of the FTC v. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 12:06 pm
LLC v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 10:52 am
In Royal v. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 11:03 am
Case citation: Hicks v. [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 1:24 am
Opening statements were held on April 23, 2009 in the trial of U.S. v. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 6:25 am
On appeal, the Circuit Court found that the District Court’s decision was inconsistent with a Supreme Court Judgement in Qualitex Co. v Jacobson Products Co. 514 U.S. 159, 162 (1995) and that the previous court was incorrect because Louboutin’s red soles have the requisite "distinctiveness" to merit trade mark protection. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 6:25 am
On appeal, the Circuit Court found that the District Court’s decision was inconsistent with a Supreme Court Judgement in Qualitex Co. v Jacobson Products Co. 514 U.S. 159, 162 (1995) and that the previous court was incorrect because Louboutin’s red soles have the requisite "distinctiveness" to merit trade mark protection. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 4:00 am
In Crocs Canada Inc. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2007, 7:26 am
The infringer filed an application with the FDA to sell the infringing device before the second opinion was given. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 6:50 pm
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in John Facenda, Jr. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 1:46 pm
People v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 8:22 am
Per Adiscov LLC v. [read post]
