Search for: "L.J.-I." Results 721 - 740 of 1,241
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Oct 2008, 4:05 am
The Public Interest in Public Interest Law," 9 YALE L.J. 1005 (1970). [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 8:58 am by Joe Consumer
Mary’s L.J. 399 (1979) at 400, n. 9.) [read post]
9 Aug 2006, 4:02 am
Berman, Reasoning Through Reasonableness, 115 Yale L.J. [read post]
8 Jun 2024, 11:02 am by Thomas James
For example, it denied protection for “How Can I Make You Smile Today? [read post]
20 Jan 2009, 6:53 pm
For what its worth, I think if Roberts hadn’t made his first mistake, Obama certainly would not have misspoken when it was his turn. [read post]
12 May 2015, 10:18 pm by Andrew Trask
Now, in his latest article, The Preservation and Rejuvenation of Aggregate Litigation: A Systemic Imperative, 64 Emory L.J. [read post]
22 Apr 2023, 6:23 am by Mayela Celis
” Below I include some of the publications of Professor Silberman (an exhaustive list is available here): Books Civil Procedure: Theory and Practice (Wolters Kluwer 6th ed., 2022; 5th ed., 2017; 4th ed., 2013; 3d ed., 2009; 2d ed., 2006; 1st ed., 2001) (with Allan R. [read post]
10 Aug 2006, 8:45 pm
Finality in Capital Punishment," that was published in January 1991 at 100 Yale L.J. 1005. [read post]
4 Nov 2007, 2:16 pm
Rai, The GSK Case: An Administrative Perspective, 2007 Patently-O Patent L.J. 36, [www.patentlyo.com]. [read post]
8 Mar 2009, 10:00 pm
Ritts, "Preemption and Medical Devices: A Response to Adler and Mann," 51 Food & Drug L.J. 1, 6 n.21 (1996).After Lohr came down, we thought those words had been relegated to the dustbin of legal history. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 4:02 am by Sarah A. Sutherland
I recently read that when legal aid was first developed in the United States in the 1960s, its primary goal was alleviation of poverty rather than access to counsel. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 3:22 am
At this point the story is taken up by the IPKat's friend Marlou L.J. van de Braak (who incidentally was acting for Gimv): "Before the Cancellation Division the case was decided on the basis of Gimv’s earlier trade name rights, but considered that there had been no genuine use of Gimv's earlier trade marks. [read post]