Search for: "State v. Stone" Results 581 - 600 of 2,193
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jan 2011, 9:21 am by Adam Baker
But they had included a note with their bid documents essentially stating that their pricing was based on a certain amount of backfill type fill but if more stone fill was in fact required then their unit price was to be adjusted. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 12:53 am by David Pocklington
” For completeness, he concluded in stating [emphasis added]: “[20]. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 12:25 pm by Eric Goldman
Perfect 10 ruling, the court cleans out all of the state law claims (unfair competition, state trademark infringement, tortious interference, negligence and unjust enrichment) due to Section 230. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 11:00 am
As a lawyer, I handle Decatur premises liability lawsuits and negligent security cases around the State of Georgia. [read post]
4 Jun 2019, 4:17 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Inc., 27 NY3d 46, 56 [2016]; Scialdone v Stepping Stones Assoc., L.P., 148 AD3d 953, 954-955 [2017]; Klein v Metropolitan Child Servs., Inc., 100 AD3d 708, 711 [2012]; 42 USC § 1983; CPLR art 14-A). [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 4:44 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Inc., 27 NY3d 46, 56 [2016]; Scialdone v Stepping Stones Assoc., L.P., 148 AD3d 953, 954-955 [2017]; Klein v Metropolitan Child Servs., Inc., 100 AD3d 708, 711 [2012]; 42 USC § 1983; CPLR art 14-A). [read post]
25 May 2017, 7:44 am by Kenneth J. Vanko
" Though the recordings unquestionably had economic value, that value did not derive from their secrecy; rather, the value came from Paisely Park's exclusive right to sell them to the public.Here is a link to the district court's opinion.Stryker Wins Sixth Circuit AppealBack in February, I noted the significance of Stone Surgical LLC v. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 5:08 pm by Dennis Crouch
By Dennis Crouch In 1931, the United States Supreme Court decided a landmark case on the patentability of inventions, De Forest Radio Co. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2024, 12:03 pm by Eric Goldman
This is a major ruling validating the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising, which occurs when an advertiser purchases and displays ads triggered in response to third-party trademarks. [read post]