Search for: "Sweet v State" Results 581 - 600 of 993
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jan 2011, 3:19 am by Kelly
Mattel (IPKat) Pacific Rim Winemakers – Joyous trademark dispute pits ‘Sweet Bliss’ against ‘Bliss’: Pacific Rim Winemakers, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 1:34 pm by MacIsaac
(London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1906) states: If the judge deems it essential to discovering the truth that the witnesses should be examined out of the hearing of each other, he will order them all on both sides to withdraw, excepting the one under examination. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 6:33 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The Supreme Court strikes down this law as unconstitutional.The case is Packingham v. [read post]
18 Dec 2021, 9:54 am by Eric Segall
This limitation is constitutionally mandated, separating our branch from our political co-branches. '[F]ederal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.' [quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 7:59 am
 The long-storing property of Lady Williams with the sweetness and lack of storage scald of Golden Delicious... must be Cripps Pink! [read post]
31 Oct 2023, 4:00 am by jonathanturley
Sue the clowns In another June 2023 decision in Munoz v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 3:11 am by New Books Script
London : Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters, 2010 lix, 716 p. ; 24 cm. [read post]