Search for: "People v Poole"
Results 521 - 540
of 1,401
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Dec 2008, 8:12 am
People v. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 5:03 am
The IJ people gave an answer there, and IJ's David Hodges has kindly written it up for me to post: In September, Linda Greenhouse of the New York Timesnoted something "odd" about Espinoza v. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 9:42 am
In Durham v. [read post]
13 Apr 2012, 8:01 am
The case involved an effort between two companies to develop a certain type of technology relating to pool drain entrapment prevention technology (which is a long way of describing way to keep people from getting stuck in a pool...). [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 1:45 pm
For example, one directive subjected casinos, restaurants, indoor amusements parks, bowling alleys, water parks, pools, arcades and more to a 50% fire-code-capacity limit, but limited places of worship to no more than 50 people, whatever their facilities’ size. [read post]
7 Sep 2019, 2:13 am
See Orion Tire Corp. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 3:31 pm
Southern Snow Manufacturing Co. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2020, 7:19 pm
In Weller v. [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 11:47 am
Ugly Pools Ariz., Inc., 804 F. [read post]
31 Jan 2020, 7:54 am
In Qualcomm v. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 8:56 am
Harrell v. [read post]
2 Oct 2010, 11:40 am
We're not sure what to do, other than publicize that the names of the individuals we use in the pool are not represented by us or anyone to be those actual people. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 7:52 am
The idea that WARF could (or even would) block research by academics is a silly, make-weight argument designed to scare people. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 9:30 am
 The United Housing Foundation v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 10:06 am
Additional Resources: Study shows MMA fighters suffer brain injury in one third of bouts, April 12, 2016, Irish Times, By Muiris Houston More Blog Entries: Snaras v. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 8:48 am
From this pool, the journal will publish ten articles. 3. [read post]
30 Jul 2020, 9:17 am
For example, he argues that if a company chooses a mark like BABY SAFE for pool fencing, instead of say FENCE-A-POOL, the company can more likely register the mark without proving secondary meaning, since it's not directly descriptive of what the product really does. (26-27).I am not sure this is necessarily true. [read post]
1 May 2011, 6:39 am
” Lynch v. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 2:17 pm
v=TD3Rz45DEpQ This is kind of like that SNL sketch, although maybe not as funny. [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 11:17 am
Janus v. [read post]
