Search for: "Clark v. State"
Results 741 - 760
of 3,519
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2012, 1:36 pm
Michael Clark, Jr. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 9:18 am
Law Lessons from DEBORAH DOLL V. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 6:21 am
People of the State of Illinois v. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 9:45 am
The case is Konowaloff v. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 7:08 am
Oral argument for Kennedy v. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 9:40 am
Windsor in United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 5:24 am
Breakdown of Clark v. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 9:00 am
HHJ Clarke also found that evidence provided by customers - who stated that they considered Wenman to be the ‘Archangel Alchemist’ - was valuable evidence of reputation or goodwill.Despite it being apparent that Wenman was more focused on growing her business by word-of mouth, through appearances in person and through her website, HHJ Clarke said it was instead to be queried whether Wenman had used the signs in the course of trade on a sufficient scale to… [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 8:42 am
They must now live with that choice and can benefit only under the protection of a patent, not that of a trademark Decision- 7 Cir – GP v Kimberly Clark// [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 10:44 am
See State v. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 6:20 am
Support for this obscure proposition is found in United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2019, 2:28 pm
In Clark v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 8:40 am
On 9 March 2011, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the joint appeal of Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) Ltd; Knowsley MBC v Willmore [2011] UKSC 10. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 1:12 am
The United States Supreme Court in Chaidez rejected the reasoning of the SJC in Clarke and found that Padilla only applied to prospectively. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 2:07 am
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne & Anor, heard 4 November 2011. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 4:30 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 2:36 am
The current law is now stated in the Equality Act 2010 but the issues in this appeal remain pertinent and are not affected by the revocation of the Regulations. [read post]
10 Apr 2007, 10:36 am
When the Supreme Court declared in Atkins v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:45 am
Lord Pannick QC says it is no answer for the Government to say that the long title to the 1972 Act “says nothing about withdrawal“. 16:04: Lord Pannick QC refers to the case of Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which he submits supports a “flexible response” to constitutional developments. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 1:21 am
Clark International Limited v. [read post]
