Search for: "Been v. Jolly"
Results 41 - 60
of 200
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2016, 7:52 am
Town of Ball, July 1, 2016, Jolly, E.). [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 7:47 am
EEOC, June 27, 2016, Jolly, E.). [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 9:44 am
In last week’s case (Hans v. [read post]
17 Jun 2016, 10:19 am
In the case of Ahmed v Shah (2015) the issuing of a cheque for the returned deposit that wasn’t accepted by the tenant was deemed to have not been returned but in the later case of Yeomans v Newell (2016) the cheque satisfied the court that the deposit had been returned. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 10:45 am
With everyone feeling suitably optimistic about the future of copyright and trade mark law, are patent lawyers feeling equally jolly? [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 6:57 am
Florida Parish Juvenile Justice Commission, January 5, 2016, Jolly, E.). [read post]
1 Dec 2015, 1:02 pm
For instance, in NAACP v. [read post]
15 Nov 2015, 3:04 pm
In one of them filed in the Southern District of California on November 6, 2015, United States v. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 7:00 am
Jolly good wheeze. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 2:59 pm
Selden and the decision in question is Columbia Motor Car Co. v. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 9:19 am
Dublin v. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 9:19 am
Dublin v. [read post]
10 Sep 2015, 11:20 pm
I don’t begrudge her the occasional all expenses paid jollys. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 3:29 pm
Last week, in Bell v. [read post]
19 Aug 2015, 4:30 am
We were thinking about this truth when we read the recent case of Seedman v. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 8:02 am
That largesse was demonstrated by a decision from then Chief Judge Jolly in New Breed, Inc. v. [read post]
1 May 2015, 12:39 am
The only alternative they have been told is to pay 6 month’s rent up front. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 10:43 am
The IPKat has since been informed by genial fellow blogger and jolly nice fellow Gilberto Macias that, as this Kat had predicted, the Board of Appeal decision in WEBSHIPPING has been appealed, as Case T-142/15 - DHL Express (France) v OHIM - Chronopost (WEBSHIPPING). [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
Its reasoning for so holding is entirely consistent with the approach to section 60(2) laid down by the Court of Appeal in this country in Grimme v Scott and KCI v Smith & Nephew (see my previous judgment at [102]).Fourthly, the Court took into account (at [4.34]-[4.36]) the fact that Sun had not taken steps which it could have taken, but this does not appear to have been critical to its reasoning. [read post]
