Search for: "Anderson v. Less et al"
Results 41 - 60
of 76
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Aug 2009, 7:01 am
(IPKat) Portugal PGI status granted to Portuguese sweet potato Batata doce de Aljezur (Class 46) Serbia Serbia ratifies Vienna Agreement on Figurative Elements of Marks (Class 46) Municipal Court of Nis issues three-month prison sentence and nominal fine to individual found to have infringed copyright in Sony PlayStation games (The IP Factor) United Kingdom EWHC (Ch): Stella’s NUDE gets the ‘go ahead’: Nude Brands Limited v… [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 2:25 pm
In Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, et al v. [read post]
2 Feb 2021, 7:10 pm
” Similarly, in the case Escher et al v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 5:56 pm
The ABA Business Law Section Backgrounder may be accessed HERE. 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMANORTHEASTERN DIVISIONNATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS )UNITED, d/b/a the NATIONAL )SMALL BUSINESS )ASSOCIATION, et al., ))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) Case No. 5:22-cv-1448-LCB)JANET YELLEN, in her official )capacity as Secretary of the )Treasury, et al., ))Defendants. )MEMORANDUM OPINIONThe late Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that federal judges… [read post]
11 Oct 2020, 1:59 pm
Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio, et al. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 2:41 pm
Last year, before the pandemic, an economic impact assessment prepared for the Attorney General’s office by the independent firm Berkeley Economic Advising and Research found that companies could spend up to $55 billion on legal fees, technology and operational costs to become compliant, with smaller firms with less than 20 employees projected to face $50,000 in initial costs, and companies with more than 500 employees projected to see costs on average of $2 million. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 9:57 am
Hastings Law Journal has a new article (technically a "Note") on predatory lending and the implications of the Second Circuit's holding on federal (non)preemption of state usury laws in Saliha Madden v Midland Funding LLC et al, written by a recent graduate. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 11:39 pm
See Dulong v. [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 6:30 am
R., Putz-Anderson, V., Garg, A., & Fine, L. [read post]
4 Feb 2008, 8:40 pm
-Anderson v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am
On November 14, 2014, in Priests for Life v. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 11:00 am
Skelos, et al., Respondents, vDavid Paterson, & c., et al., Appellants. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 10:44 am
(Builds on scholars such as Sean Seymore and Ben Roin; see also Krieger et al. on drug novelty. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 11:19 am
James III, et al. [read post]
21 Feb 2022, 5:53 pm
See Anderson v. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 1:29 pm
Anderson v. [read post]
6 Jan 2025, 11:00 am
Laura Coordes, Harrington v. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 2:51 pm
As a threshold matter, for those less familiar with Section 533, a brief overview may be useful. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 7:13 am
For example, he raises and explains the problem encountered for causal inference by small relative risks: “Small relative risks of the order of 2:1 or even less are what are likely to be observed, like the risk now recorded for childhood leukemia and exposure to magnetic fields of 0.4 µT or more (Ahlbom et al. 2000) that are seldom encountered in the United Kingdom. [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 7:37 am
The lack of verifiable ownership records and anonymous transactions makes it difficult for collectors, investors, and even institutions to make informed decisions, resulting in a less reliable and trustworthy market.[6] The 2016 Hoffman v L&M Arts Dispute It is essential to note that not all transactions conducted by anonymous individuals indicate involvement in illegal activities or money laundering. [read post]
