Search for: "SHORT v. USA"
Results 601 - 620
of 1,024
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Feb 2013, 9:42 am
See Demahy v. [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 10:09 am
Sorin CRM USA, Inc., 2013 U.S. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 2:06 pm
There’s nothing it can do about it, since it has no control over the competitor – short of closing its eyes to a potentially breakthrough new use for its product.DDLaw, More Thoughts On Conte v. [read post]
16 Jan 2013, 1:21 pm
[See Gary Strauss, AAA Warns E15 Gasoline Could Cause Car Damage, USA TODAY, November 30, 2012.] [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 1:18 pm
This was precisely the case in the BMG v. [read post]
4 Jan 2013, 12:53 pm
Philip Morris USA, Inc., 837 A.2d 534, 537-538 (Pa. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 3:17 pm
Respondent: USA. [read post]
30 Dec 2012, 9:13 pm
In Lafler v. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm
Short of a formal performance standard, mere deviations from expected performance could not support parallel claims. [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 11:11 pm
Adam Wagner predicts the “romance” between the paper and the HRA will be short-lived. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 9:01 pm
(Here’s an essay that’s directly on point: “Promises by Political Candidates Not Legally Enforceable in the USA“ by attorney Ronald B. [read post]
28 Nov 2012, 5:09 am
In the recent case of Stancil v. [read post]
9 Nov 2012, 5:31 am
Due to the lack of any clear written provisions, the brief argued, the courts would inevitably cross the First Amendment line if they tried to resolve the dispute by going beyond the clear outlines of diocesan authority.From this short sketch, you can see that both groups of bishops were arguing in essence the same point, only in different ways: yes, the Episcopal Church (USA) is hierarchical, but only up to the diocesan level. [read post]
4 Nov 2012, 5:00 pm
Perhaps a short course in econometrics, modeling, and STS for dispute panelists would be a pragmatic next step. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
This argument was raised in one case dealing with §602, and the court, confronted with the argument against plaintiff’s hair care product labels, said, “Catch phrases, mottos, slogans and short advertising expressions are not copyrightable. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
This argument was raised in one case dealing with §602, and the court, confronted with the argument against plaintiff’s hair care product labels, said, “Catch phrases, mottos, slogans and short advertising expressions are not copyrightable. [read post]
28 Oct 2012, 1:50 pm
It’s two short sentences, and nine words. [read post]
21 Oct 2012, 10:30 am
The first, The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, et al. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2012, 9:51 am
Supreme Court, Ford Motor Co. v. [read post]
13 Oct 2012, 12:41 pm
Farmer v. [read post]
