Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 5941 - 5960
of 19,223
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Nov 2016, 3:54 am
United States, which asks whether the residual clause of the sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 4:25 am
United States, involving the prosecution of threats made on Facebook. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 4:00 am
First up is Texas v. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 1:35 pm
Recently, the Florida Supreme Court case of Alachua County v. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 1:35 pm
Recently, the Florida Supreme Court case of Alachua County v. [read post]
28 Apr 2022, 12:34 pm
Real USFL, LLC v. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 12:33 pm
” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 9:06 am
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d at 9 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Krouner v Koplovitz, 175 AD2d 531, 532 [1991]). [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 1:00 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 10:53 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 3:03 am
TBMP § 1113.01.Early Recognition claimed the right to exclusive use of the subject mark for the entire United States, except for the County of San Francisco within the state of California. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 10:33 am
Lasoff v. [read post]
8 Jan 2009, 5:42 pm
This marked reduced earning capacity is not factored into a divorce, since settlements focus on dividing marital property. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 9:49 am
” State of Maryland v. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 11:34 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 4:00 am
In Baker v. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 6:50 am
Seuss Enters., L.P. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 7:16 am
A. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 3:01 am
Is Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 to be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for a Community trade mark is to be regarded as acting in bad faith where he knows, at the time of his application, that a competitor in (at least) one Member State is using the same sign, or one so similar as to be capable of being confused with it, for the same or similar goods or services, and he applies for the trade mark in order to be able to prevent that competitor from… [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 3:15 am
"While privity of contract is generally necessary to state a cause of action for attorney malpractice, liability is extended to third parties, not in privity, for harm caused by professional negligence in the presence of fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances" (Good Old Days Tavern v Zwirn, 259 AD2d 300, 300; see AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St. [read post]
