Search for: "Diamond v State" Results 581 - 600 of 990
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jan 2012, 10:15 am by scanner1
LOWE, an individual, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 5:00 am by IP Dragon
 It is well known that Louis Vuitton did not only trademark the name Louis Vuitton, and the monogram LV but also the Monogram Canvas, and each of its constituting parts: the fourpointed stars, four-pointed stars inset in curved diamonds (flower quatrefoil diamond), and four-pointed flowers inset (flower quatrefoil). [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 3:01 pm
By allowing indirect purchasers who had no standing to sue under their state's antitrust laws to be part of the settlement class, the appellate majority has created a “come one, come all” environment that “sets the class action ship in [the Ninth] Circuit badly adrift,” the dissent argued.The decision is Sullivan v. [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
Statements in Open Court and Apologies Media interest in privacy injunctions was revived with Imogen Thomas’ statement in open court in the case of CTB v NGN, which stated the claimant footballer had accepted there was no basis to accuse her of blackmail. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 8:15 am by Dennis Crouch
One could think of this as a simplistic personalized diagnostic device in which a particular nongenetic marker is measured to identify a state of health. [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
British and global media maintained its interest in the Leveson Inquiry for another week, following evidence by Chris Jefferies, Charlotte Church, Anne Diamond, former News of the World journalist Paul McMullan and Alastair Campbell. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 11:53 am by Stephen Jenei
§101 that this Court flatly rejected thirty years ago in Diamond v. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 5:22 pm by WOLFGANG DEMINO
––Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (holding statement accusing plaintiff of "lawsuit abuse" was an opinion and was not actionable as defamatory statement); see also Double Diamond, Inc. v. [read post]