Search for: "US v. Ellis" Results 661 - 680 of 817
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Sep 2010, 11:14 am by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
"[I]t is undisputed that Ellis relinquished actual possession of the second gun after he acquired it from the straw purchaser in June 2005; the important [...] [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 5:40 pm by James Eckert
" As if Nunez was unclear, see also People v Dwyer, 73 AD3d 1467; People v Releford, 73 AD3d 1437; People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, like Nunez all decided by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department on May 7, 2010.This is something you can expect to see many, many times over the coming years. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 5:20 pm by carie
He has used that power to build coalitions and has become the undisputed leader of the resistance against the conservatives on the Court. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 8:59 am by David Smith
Most importantly the interpretation of ground 14A used by HHJ Ellis did not find favour. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 8:59 am by David Smith
Most importantly the interpretation of ground 14A used by HHJ Ellis did not find favour. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 9:29 pm by HumaRashid
Men have it easy compared to women: they don’t have to ponder the great Pantsuit v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 8:33 pm by pete.black@gmail.com (Peter Black)
"Bernard Keane on Conroy vs Lundy" http://j.mp/9oAX5 sad news for the us legal community ... [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 7:51 am by Dave
[I should have credited Garden Court's e-bulletin for alerting us to this judgment] [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 7:51 am by Dave
[I should have credited Garden Court's e-bulletin for alerting us to this judgment] [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 8:16 am by law shucks
Former Kirkland & Ellis partner John Desmarais has opened his own IP firm (HT: ABA Journal), but it’s not a traditional IP legal boutique.He has also bought 4,500 patents from a former client, which he’ll use as the basis for finding and suing infringers. [read post]
20 May 2010, 6:37 pm by Barry Eagar
 The Full Court said that for there to be use of a trademark there needed to be "a conscious resolve on the part of the person alleging ownership of future use in Australia".Lion Nathan relied on Estex Clothing Manufacturers Pty Ltd vs Ellis and Goldstein Ltd (1967) 116 CLR 254. [read post]