Search for: "Direct Sales Co. v. United States"
Results 681 - 700
of 1,027
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Oct 2011, 5:33 pm
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (05-10-01634-CV) – Recites well-established rule that if a party fails to claim in the trial court that a foreclosure sale was invalid, she has not preserved this claim for appellate review. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 1:31 pm
§102(a).[24] As an illustration of how this might represent a change, lets look at the facts in Motionless Keyboard Co. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 12:49 am
No. 7,381,804 (IPBiz) US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps ADA Solutions – Stay pending reexam denied where parties were direct competitors in developing market: ADA Solutions v. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 1:03 am
: Telstra & Anor v Phone Directories Co & Ors (IP Whiteboard) Canada The daily digital lock dissenter, day 8: Documentary Organisation of Canada (Michael Geist) The daily digital lock dissenter, day 7: Canadian Civil Liberties Association (Michael Geist) The daily digital lock dissenter, day 6: Canadian Federation of Students (Michael Geist) The daily digital lock dissenter, day 5: Canadian Teachers’ Federation (Michael Geist) Canada proposes (another)… [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 11:05 am
Sparks & Co. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 4:26 pm
This week I had the opportunity to hear former United States Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters speak about ongoing copyright issues in the United States. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 5:21 am
Defendant stated that the discovery he sought was relevant to the issue whether plaintiff's actions caused appreciation to the separate property which should then be included in the marital estate. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 3:17 am
Becton, Dickinson and Co. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 11:39 pm
The co-authors are Nicholas Johnson (Fordham), Michael O’Shea (Oklahoma City), George Mocsary (Connecticut), and me.Below the fold is the full Table of Contents and Preface for the book. [read post]
27 Aug 2011, 4:34 am
http://j.st/SU6 United States v. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 10:42 pm
Indeed, the fact that the individual unit that the plaintiff owned may no longer be available is irrelevant; the plans and other units of the product are available from which the plaintiff -- usually through expert testimony -- can make her case. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 5:47 pm
v. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 7:30 am
") Remember Ricci v. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 11:58 am
Webb, III v. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 11:53 am
Liebeck v. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 1:09 pm
It took Buckman Co. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm
Zumbiel Co. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm
Zumbiel Co. [read post]
6 Aug 2011, 2:27 pm
Co. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 8:38 am
The rationale for extending the statute to situations such as this was to protect and enhance the commercial reputation of New York by regulating not only franchise offers directed at New York from other states, but also those originating in New York, from New York-based franchisors, in the court’s view.The July 7 opinion in A Love of Food I, LLC v. [read post]
