Search for: "IN RE B E S"
Results 7201 - 7220
of 7,830
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Sep 2008, 8:12 pm
There's more linking our respective clients than just the learned intermediary rule.Getting back to Gourdine, the court next addressed the "bystander" issue, something we're accustomed to thinking of as more of a strict liability than a negligence concept. [read post]
11 Sep 2008, 9:30 am
" [TTABlog aside: we're talking about registration here, not use, so what's the relevance of this argument anyway?] [read post]
10 Sep 2008, 10:29 pm
"Finally, the defendant's motion for summary judgment re: damages based on the alleged lack of marking was denied. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:37 pm
Here's a copy of the motion, and here's part of what the motion says: After engaging in extensive discovery, the Plaintiffs have determined the following: (a) the McIntosh dwelling was damaged as a result of Hurricane Katrina; (b) the majority of the damage to the McIntosh dwelling was caused by flooding; (c) the McIntosh dwelling sustained flood damage of at least $250,000 to the structure and $100,000 to its contents; (d)… [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:37 pm
Here's a copy of the motion, and here's part of what the motion says: After engaging in extensive discovery, the Plaintiffs have determined the following: (a) the McIntosh dwelling was damaged as a result of Hurricane Katrina; (b) the majority of the damage to the McIntosh dwelling was caused by flooding; (c) the McIntosh dwelling sustained flood damage of at least $250,000 to the structure and $100,000 to its contents; (d)… [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Desinor, 525 F.3d 193, 202 (2d Cir. 2008); and 3) the evidence adduced at trial that defendant killed the two victims while engaging in a drug offense punishable under 21 U.S.C. section 841(b)(1)(A) was sufficient for a jury to convict him under 21 U.S.C. section 848(e)(1)(A). [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 1:28 am
In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation (Astrazeneca v. [read post]
5 Sep 2008, 11:01 pm
’s yodel first sound mark granted by India’s trade mark regis [read post]
4 Sep 2008, 7:05 pm
In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the following facts: (a) Braun’s business owned the computers; (b) the computers were kept at Braun’s business; (c) Braun told M.A. when he was hired that the business owned the computers; (d) the desktop was connected to the corporate network; (e) co-workers had access to both computers; and (f) M.A. [read post]
4 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the following facts: (a) Braun’s business owned the computers; (b) the computers were kept at Braun’s business; (c) Braun told M.A. when he was hired that the business owned the computers; (d) the desktop was connected to the corporate network; (e) co-workers had access to both computers; and (f) M.A. [read post]
4 Sep 2008, 3:04 am
Stewart of the University of Queensland B. [read post]
3 Sep 2008, 6:25 pm
It would be a nice dose of Shurtleff's own medicine to see him arrested on videotape for corruption.Written by:Sam E. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 5:17 pm
Brattain, No. 07-1594 A sentence for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor is vacated and remanded for resentencing where, contrary to the district court's conclusion, the district court's refusal to apply an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. section 4B1.5(b) was error because defendant qualified as a repeat offender, and Congress explicitly revised the enhancement to apply to repeat-offenders who abuse only a single victim. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 4:00 am
JPML Rule 7.2(a)-(b); see also id. 7.2(e) ("Motions, their accompaniments, responses, and replies shall also be governed by Rules 5.12, 5.2 and 7.1 of these Rules. [read post]
30 Aug 2008, 11:57 pm
Brooks, B. [read post]
30 Aug 2008, 5:06 pm
That's all good for the final fiscal year tally. [read post]
29 Aug 2008, 1:25 pm
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 5:01 pm
As stated by the New York Supreme Court (Justice Charles E. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
roperly denied defendant's motion for a new trial. [read post]
27 Aug 2008, 6:04 pm
Whether the trial court's denial of Williams' motion for involuntary dismissal, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 41(B), was clearly erroneous. 3. [read post]
