Search for: "State v. B. V." Results 5221 - 5240 of 41,764
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Oct 2021, 7:44 am by Wenona T. Singel
Brief of Amici Curiae Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, NCAI, NIGA, and USET in support of Cert Petition Texas’ Cert Opp Reply of petitioners Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Brief amicus curiae of United States in favor of SCOTUS review Texas’ Supplemental brief Texas v Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 5th Circuit Opinion   [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 9:43 am by Andrew Hamm
These and other petitions of the week are below: United States v. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 6:42 am by Kenan Farrell
Scoops & Sweet Bubbles, LLC (ND, filed 8/25/2021) – The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim (based on lack of interstate commerce) and lack of supplemental jurisdiction. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 6:37 am by Jennifer Davis
Sayler, Richard H., Boyer, Barry B., & Gooding, Jr., Robert E. (1968)  The Warren Court: a Critical Analysis. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 6:01 am by Russell Knight
“The official language of the State of Illinois is English. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 4:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Giving plaintiff 'the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from [the] pleading,' this Court determines only whether the alleged facts "fit within any cognizable legal theory' (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 86 NY2d 307, 318 [1995], quoting Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 4:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Giving plaintiff 'the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from [the] pleading,' this Court determines only whether the alleged facts "fit within any cognizable legal theory' (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 86 NY2d 307, 318 [1995], quoting Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). [read post]
14 Oct 2021, 1:40 pm by Mills & Mills LLP
The “confusion test” – Sections 12(1)(d) and 16(3)(a) and (b) Section 12(1)(d) states that a mark is registrable if it is not confusing with a registered trademark; sections 16(3)(a) and (b) very similarly provided that a mark must not be confusing with a trademark that had previously been know or applied for. [read post]