Search for: "State v. Holderness"
Results 5201 - 5220
of 8,249
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2012, 2:49 pm
56/11 Raiffeisen Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main eG v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 1:11 pm
Burgett, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 12:25 pm
Campbell v. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 1:26 pm
In contrast to the United States, treble (or multiple) damages are not available. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 9:33 am
In 2003, the Delaware General Assembly extended the right to demand inspection from stockholders of record to beneficial stockholders, but only if the beneficial holder states under oath with the demand that he or she is a beneficial holder, provides documentary evidence of beneficial ownership of the stock and states that such evidence is a true and correct copy of what it purports to be.In Central Laborers Pension Fund v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 8:17 pm
V. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 1:38 pm
This applies to all works and does not require permission from the rights holder. [read post]
9 Jun 2012, 5:13 am
” California: On May 14, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a lengthy decision (Vance’s Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 2:45 pm
Holder, 660 F.3d 267, 271 (7th Cir. 2011), Gatimi v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 2:05 pm
Gutierrez and Holder v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 10:22 am
You’ve Been Served Angellino v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 10:22 am
You’ve Been Served Angellino v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 7:48 am
Like those other decisions (as well as Perry v. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 8:58 am
(See Board of Trustees v. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 6:20 am
In support of this conclusion, the Sixth Circuit stated, “[t]he sound recording copyright holder cannot exact a license fee greater than what it would cost the person seeking the license to just duplicate the sample in the course of making the new recording. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 6:51 pm
In the context of merger analysis, a noted authority on antitrust law, sums up stating that: “[f]or antitrust purposes,…. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
Nevertheless, the OD dealt with the objection in substance […] by stating that claims 1 and 2 of auxiliary request II were not limited to a single plant variety and were therefore allowable under A 53(b) and R 23b(4) EPC 1973. [23] Under these circumstances the objection under A 100(a) in conjunction with A 53(b) against product claims relating to tomato fruits cannot be regarded as a fresh ground of opposition which may be introduced in the appeal proceedings only with the… [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 7:06 am
At that time, she did not list the holder of her student loans as a creditor. [read post]
3 Jun 2012, 9:05 am
Nor did the EEOC’s April ruling in Macy v Holder create a new protected class of transgender people, Feldblum said. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 2:57 pm
Hogan v. [read post]
