Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Lance" Results 41 - 60 of 145
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Apr 2016, 5:18 am by Amy Howe
” Last week’s decision in Luis v. [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 3:24 pm
The UK litigation which led to the CJEU ruling in Case C-487/07 L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC and Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd and Starion International Ltd [on which see Katnote here] might be said to be an example of an attempt to change the law succeeding; the assault on Unilin Beheer BV v Berry Floor NV and others [2007] EWCA Civ 364 in Virgin Atlantic Airway Ltd v Zodiac… [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 2:04 pm
Our own Eleonora Rosati argued in favour of protection, citing the generously open phraseology of recent Court of Justice rulings; leading Dutch practitioner and scholar Tobias Cohen Jehoram opposed, appealing to reason, common sense and his father's dictum that the famous rule in the Dutch case of Kecofa v Lancôme was "all sails, no anchor".Following our BLACA session, you will be interested to learn that the Gelderland District Court yesterday… [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
  In Mills, the plaintiff claimed that, due to a variant gene (“CYP”), she could not metabolize the defendant’s drug as well as most other people. [read post]
16 May 2015, 5:33 am by SHG
While it appears that there is a general, amorphous right to film police, a decision by the Second Circuit, Higginbotham v. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 10:13 am
Meanwhile, if you want to get a taste of Dutch jurisprudence on the subject of taste protection, here's a link to an English translation of the decision in Kecofa v Lancôme. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 11:15 am
At the time, I was posting on the California Court of Appeal's opinion in People v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 4:30 am
  The plaintiff in Tersigni pointed to the recent excrescence from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Lance v. [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 4:00 am by Administrator
Section 2 (2) sets out when people cease to be spouses for the purpose of the Act. [read post]