Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 6741 - 6760
of 21,693
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2020, 3:50 am
Adam Liptak reports for The New York Times that during yesterday’s argument in United States v. [read post]
26 Nov 2008, 5:32 am
Applying the maxim "ask, and thou shalt not receive," the district judge in United States v. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 3:45 am
Yesterday the court released a unanimous opinion in Lomax v. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 10:23 am
The Sixth Circuit recently made headlines with its trade dress decision with its decision in Makers Mark v. [read post]
28 Feb 2009, 11:07 pm
United States v. [read post]
29 May 2012, 8:07 am
Fraley, et al. v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 6:00 am
UNC and Moody v. [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 2:56 am
TWD, LLC v. [read post]
24 Aug 2007, 8:19 am
WFS Financial, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Nov 2018, 5:19 pm
On February 1, 2018, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided Steiner v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 3:36 pm
Co. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 11:05 am
As stated above, when Dr. [read post]
21 Apr 2018, 1:40 pm
" State v. [read post]
20 Nov 2008, 8:52 pm
" Mark E. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 10:22 am
State-on-top habeas case Woods v. [read post]
31 Jul 2007, 5:48 pm
Magic Kitchen LLC v. [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 8:43 am
Recently, two cases State of Netherlands v Urgenda (December 20, 2019) and Juliana v. [read post]
18 Oct 2015, 9:32 am
The judge erred by proceeding on the basis that the global award did not need to be proportionate to that scale and that he could focus on compensation by adopting a “single wrong by single wrong” basis for compensation. (2) The size of the awards is disproportionate by reference to awards by the European Court of Human Rights for breaches of privacy. (3) There has been double-counting in the awards of… [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 6:47 am
University of Texas at Austin and the arguments in United States v. [read post]
1 Jan 2014, 4:33 am
According to the recent Generics v Teva/Yeda decision, the burden of proof should therefore be on the alleged infringer, not the patentee. [read post]
