Search for: "MARKS v. STATE"
Results 501 - 520
of 21,493
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Dec 2023, 4:43 pm
The imminence requirement should be considered as marking a boundary of the state’s duty to mitigate by providing an opportunity for confrontation. [read post]
27 Dec 2023, 8:47 pm
Smith v. [read post]
27 Dec 2023, 9:40 am
. * After II Movie, LLC v. [read post]
27 Dec 2023, 5:25 am
Eastern District of North Carolina Judge Richard Myers in Nutt v. [read post]
27 Dec 2023, 3:00 am
In McCloskey v. [read post]
[Eugene Volokh] Mark McCloskey, Pardoned for Brandishing Guns at Protesters, Can't Get the Guns Back
26 Dec 2023, 2:50 pm
In Fay v. [read post]
26 Dec 2023, 3:47 am
Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Dec 2023, 8:44 am
This year marks six decades since the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Gideon v. [read post]
24 Dec 2023, 6:34 am
Cameron (@JasmineDCameron) Trump – Intelligence Community Trump’s States Goals for the U.S. [read post]
23 Dec 2023, 7:16 pm
Not only was the statement wrong in 1993, when the Supreme Court decided the famous Daubert case, it was wrong 20 years later, in 2013, when the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Diclegis, a combination of doxylamine succinate and pyridoxine hydrochloride, the essential ingredients in Bendectin, for sale in the United States, for pregnant women experiencing nausea and vomiting.[16] The return of Bendectin to the market, although under a different name,… [read post]
22 Dec 2023, 12:30 pm
But officials broke "[v]irtually every promise" they made. [read post]
22 Dec 2023, 6:00 am
The company states that they meticulously develop, manufacture, and market products under various trademarks such as TEMPUR, TEMPUR-PEDIC, and TEMPUR SEALY. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 1:24 pm
The Supreme Court heard the landmark appeal, Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023], after it was initially dismissed in the High Court and Court of Appeal in 2021. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 9:45 am
” The complaint in B.L.R. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 9:00 am
It did so largely on the basis of its interpretation of Article 9(1) of Directive 89/104, the key wording of which is "has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of a later trade mark registered in that Member State while being aware of such use". [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 4:10 pm
The case is Gates v. [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 12:03 pm
CDC Newburgh Inc. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 10:53 am
by Dennis Crouch Thaler v. [read post]
19 Dec 2023, 4:48 pm
The Departments establishment of the IDR fee for post-February 20, 2025 disputes and their previous December 15, 2023 announcement of the full reopening of the IDR portal for all dispute categories are part of the Departments’ ongoing response to the August 3, 2023 Federal District court ruling in Texas Medical Association, et al. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2023, 1:39 pm
That was the issue in today's ruling in People v. [read post]
