Search for: "Owens v. Chance" Results 41 - 60 of 101
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2015, 3:37 pm by Howard Knopf
I expect that this will be a “hot ticket” event and early registration is strongly encouraged.BTW, there’s a reasonably good chance that we will have a decision by the time of the conference from the Supreme Court of Canada in the CBC v. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am by Schachtman
The first edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence [Manual] was published in 1994, a year after the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Daubert. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 6:28 am by Maureen Johnston
Owens 14-887Issue: (1) Whether, in a 42 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 1:48 am by Jeremy Speres
  In Lucky Star Ltd v Lucky Brands (Pty) Ltd and others, Judge Owen Rogers, of the High Court at the foot of a mountain, deftly dealt with a claim of primary trade mark infringement, as well as dilution, of the applicant’s iconic LUCKY STAR word as well as device marks registered in respect of, amongst others, fish products, fresh salads and retail services. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 3:40 am by Amy Howe
”  And Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo reports that “the Republicans who will run Congress next year may be unintentionally undermining their chances of a victory in King v. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 7:25 am
Beyond the case itself, Darren seizes the chance to provide a lovely comparative piece upon how product-by-process works in the UK, in the US and in Eponia.* Google announces end of News in SpainA few weeks ago, Spain introduced an ancillary right over news content. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am by Schachtman
Mass. 1986)(granting summary judgment), aff’d, 830 F.2d 1190, 1197 (1st Cir. 1987)(distinguishing between chances that “somewhat favor” plaintiff and plaintiff’s burden of showing specific causation by “preponderant evidence”) DeLuca v. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 11:46 am by Schachtman
Rapid Transit, 317 Mass. 469, 470, 58 N.E.2d 754, 755 (1945) (evidence that defendant was the only bus franchise operating in the area where the accident took place was not sufficient to establish that the bus that caused the accident belonged to the defendant where private or chartered buses could have been in the area; it is not enough that mathematically the chances somewhat favor the proposition to be proved) Kamosky v Owens-Illinois Co., 89 F. [read post]