Search for: "LaBelle v. LaBelle" Results 7541 - 7560 of 12,213
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Oct 2013, 8:18 pm
Category: 101   By: Eric Paul Smith, Contributor    TitleUltramercial, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 5:31 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
Floyd LJ held that parties should not abuse the confidential label, and should have “solid grounds” for designating material as AEO in order to protect their confidential information. [read post]
18 Mar 2009, 8:24 am
Cumberland's Brannon Denning has a very interesting and enjoyable piece in the new Tennessee Law Review titled The New Doctrinalism in Constitutional Scholarship and District of Columbia v. [read post]
4 Sep 2011, 9:42 am by Michael H. Cohen
Medical directors at medical spas should be concerned that, unless the arrangement is carefully structured with an eye to legal rules and anti-kickback risks, regulatory enforcement authorities might perceive their role as sham and fraudulent.In U.S. v. [read post]
31 May 2021, 9:00 am
  Such was the ruling of the Cheshire County Superior Court in Denron Plumbing & HVAC, LLC v. [read post]
22 Jun 2008, 3:25 pm
Otero of the United States District Court for the Central District of California has ruled in UMG Recordings v. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 6:05 am by David Post
(David Post) For those of you interested in this sort of thing or this issue, I’ve written (along with Annemarie Bridy at U Idaho) a “Law Professors’ Amicus Brief” in the appeal (before the 2d Circuit in NYC) in the Viacom et al. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2023, 8:49 am by Lindsey A. Zahn
A recent legal case, Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco v Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated [2023] SGCA 37, the Singapore Court of Appeal granted Consorzio’s application to register “Prosecco” as a Geographical Indication (“GI”) which designates wine originating from Italy. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 8:01 am by Dan Bressler
“Canada: Lawyer Who Was Consulted By Another Lawyer Disqualified From Acting Against Other Lawyer” — “2658396 Ontario Inc. v. [read post]