Search for: "State v. Mai X."
Results 621 - 640
of 3,595
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Feb 2011, 5:15 pm
x Consumer Law and Policy Blog reports: In a closely watched case, the California Supreme Court on Thursday issued a decision preserving the broad availability of the state’s principal consumer protection laws in cases involving mislabeled goods.The question at issue in Kwikset v. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 1:00 am
On Wednesday 1 May, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd. [read post]
17 May 2021, 8:31 am
App’x 23 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order affirming denial of petition). [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 1:45 pm
[Footnote: Indeed, the record shows that the district court made its determination on May 1, 2014, but entered judgment almost two weeks later on May 12, 2014.] [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 5:40 am
App’x 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished); Arana v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 11:18 am
" Koon v. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 2:36 pm
United States v. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 1:48 am
” The judgment is Santo’s Italian Café LLC v Acuity Insurance Company No. 21-3068 (6th Cir. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 2:12 pm
Sanchez v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 1:44 am
United States v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 5:29 pm
As SCOTUS explains in Plyler v. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 11:25 am
” Fill in X with the most pernicious obligations that would make UGC impossible, and yet intermediaries still will be feel compelled to do X to avoid the liability. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 5:33 am
· The non-moral justifications that states offer to justify their bans “ta[x] the credulity of the credulous,” Maryland v. [read post]
16 May 2010, 6:25 am
LEXIS 46323 (ED CA, April 9, 2010), a California federal district court held plaintiff's charge that prison officials harassed him about his dreadlocks did not state a free exercise claim.In Tapp v. [read post]
9 Jul 2024, 11:28 am
On the one hand, the value may be gauged as [read post]
2 Feb 2016, 12:46 pm
We have also found that a patent applicant need notexpressly state “my invention does not include X” toindicate his exclusion of X from the scope of his patentbecause “the patentee’s choice of preferred embodimentscan shed light on the intended scope of the claims. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 6:02 am
Madden v. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 7:55 pm
See Perry v. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 2:10 pm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In Mount Lemmon Fire District v. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 9:43 am
Products made in the U.S. would not be affected, however, and this may be a big part of the reason why the Google subsidiary is "assembling" the Moto X in the United States. [read post]
