Search for: "Davis v. Davis" Results 7321 - 7340 of 8,261
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Mar 2015, 10:47 am by John Elwood
Also, the Court has yet to set a Conference for the rescheduled Davis v. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm by Pace Law School Library
Lancaster Jr., chair; Ralph Gillis, David Colson, Davis Robinson and Judge Stephen M. [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
 The judgment in Levitt v Felton  [pdf] was handed down by the Michigan Trial Court on 19 February 2015. [read post]
28 May 2017, 4:03 pm by INFORRM
In the case of Versi v express.co.uk IPSO found that there had been no code breach. [read post]
11 Jan 2020, 5:48 am by Joel R. Brandes
  Appellate Division, First Department In proceeding to establish standing to assert parental rights in seeking visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70, the court has the discretion to direct “more monied” party to pay the other party’s counsel fee            In Kelly G v Circe H, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2019 WL 6869009 (1stDept.,2019), the Appellate Division held, as a matter of first impression for the… [read post]
18 Jun 2017, 4:10 pm by INFORRM
On 15 June 2017, there was an application in the appeal of Economou v Freitas. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
As already mentioned, on the same day Lord Thomas CJ and Nicola Davies J gave judgment on remedy in the case of HM Attorney-General v Conde Nast Publications Ltd. [read post]
19 Mar 2017, 5:05 pm by INFORRM
On the same date there was a hearing in the case of PTW v WPT before Lewis J who gave an ex tempore judgment. [read post]
27 Nov 2021, 2:24 am by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
In Chapter 22, Alan Durant and Jennifer Davis explain how linguistics may be applied in IP research: for instance, in judicial interpretation of certain legal terms, or in examining the distinctiveness of certain verbal signs. [read post]
4 Jan 2017, 11:19 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Garfield has noted that only 100 journals (out of 3,400 indexed journals in SCI) account for 44% of cited articles.In the November, 1996 letter, BN refer to the case I discussed (Gordon and Breach v. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 1:50 am
Initially the opposition was based on a whole host of grounds, starting with the Trade Marks Act 1996, section 8 on the grounds that BETPACK (i) did not fall within the definition of a trade mark, (ii) was devoid of distinctive character, (iii) consisted exclusively of signs or indications which may designate characteristics of the goods, (iv) was of such a nature as to deceive, (v) was such that its use would be prohibited by enactment or rule of law. [read post]