Search for: "State v. Hoffman" Results 641 - 660 of 1,039
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Oct 2010, 10:30 pm by Matthew Hill
” [see R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37, [2006] 1 AC 173, per Lord Hoffman at p.186H]. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 4:45 am by Roger Alford
National Australia Bank Ltd gave strong indications that the Court was prepared to extend the territorial limitations of Hoffman-La Rouche v. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 11:53 am
You can separately subscribe to the Pharma & Biotech edition of the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review by subscribing by email, or selecting ‘all posts’ or ‘Pharma, Biotech & Chem’ for the RSS option at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com]   Highlights this week included: Oxytrol (Oxybutynin) - US: Watson files patent infringement lawsuit against Barr over application to market generic Oxytrol; Barr challenges Oxytrol patent… [read post]
12 May 2008, 8:39 am
This one is a bit more intriguing than the first.Hoffman v. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 3:35 am by SHG
  The Texas State Bar sees horseradish. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
June. 13, 2013), holding essentially that, since those meanies on the United States Supreme Court aren’t letting plaintiffs sue generic manufacturers, we’ll change Alabama common law and let them sue someone else. [read post]
26 May 2012, 3:02 pm by legalinformatics
Georgia Shelby Bell, University of Minnesota: The Presidency as a Tool for Foreign Policy: An Exploration of the Implications of United States v. [read post]
26 May 2012, 3:02 pm by legalinformatics
Georgia Shelby Bell, University of Minnesota: The Presidency as a Tool for Foreign Policy: An Exploration of the Implications of United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 8:23 am by Julia Malleck
North Country (2005) North Country chronicles the story of the first class-action sexual harassment lawsuit in the United States, Jenson v. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 9:43 am
"At issue in the appeal is the conflict of the 9th Circuit's decision with the court's precedent in Hoffman v Capital Cities (2001) which held that an image portraying a celebrity's name and likeness was transformative (i.e., the addition of creative contributions to the likeness) and therefore protected under the First Amendment. [read post]