Search for: "US v. Gist"
Results 501 - 520
of 758
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Apr 2012, 12:01 pm
” United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 1:41 pm
The Appeals Court indicates, "The gist of the claim is that these conveyances resulted in uses of the land, initially purchased with funds from the Wildlife Restoration Act, contrary to the purposes for which it was initially acquired. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 2:00 am
Torvik recently posted about the case of Pacific v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 7:15 am
Laidlow’s evidence to be particularly useful here. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 4:26 am
Hardy & Maile v. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 3:00 am
Marie Taglioni in La SylphideThe Paris Commercial Court goes two for two with today’s case of the day, L’Institute National De L’Audiovisuel v. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 7:47 pm
Gist: courts adopt an ameliorating practice within eBay and still compensating the owner of the copyright where appropriate. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 4:21 pm
By Rebecca Woods In the most recent ruling in long-running litigation styled AMG National Trust Bank v. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 5:22 am
By Dennis Crouch HTC v. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 5:23 pm
In relation to “gisting”, which is when a person is given the “gist” of the allegations against him, Anderson is concerned that the “suggestion that legislation might define the categories of case in which gisting is not required (GP §2.43) is unwelcome”. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 4:00 am
Anyway, the gist of the case can be picked up from it: "The sign "VIAGUARA" cannot be registered as a Community trade mark for drinks Use of that sign is likely to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark VIAGRAThe Community Trade Mark Regulation provides that registration of a trade mark may be refused ... where the use without due cause of the trade mark applied for would take unfair… [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 3:18 pm
In Cobb v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 7:41 am
That's the gist of it folks. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 11:47 am
SOURCES: 1832 art V § 10; 1869 art V § 10. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 1:10 am
Indeed, since January 2007, when plaintiff obtained her case files and observed that defendants had performed very little work on her underlying cases, she should have discovered, through the use [*2]of reasonable diligence, the facts supporting liability, including the fact that Radialchoice had been involuntary liquidated (see McGee v Weinberg, 97 Cal App 3d 798, 803, 159 Cal Rptr 86, 89-90 [1979]). [read post]
8 Jan 2012, 12:56 pm
” Paramount Communications Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 1:18 pm
The gist of his opinion is that use of new technology doesn’t justify the creation of new legal principles. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 10:18 am
The gist of his opinion is that use of new technology doesn’t justify the creation of new legal principles. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 8:28 am
Co. v. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 3:50 pm
Indeed, the quoted material Craig uses does not support the literal truth of that statement. [read post]
