Search for: "State v. C. R."
Results 7641 - 7660
of 13,583
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jan 2013, 3:17 pm
Defendant: Joseph C. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 11:08 am
Judge Lucy Koh is doing some clean-up in the Apple v. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 8:34 am
ARNOTT v. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 8:00 am
Just a brief note on this case: Edgerly v. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 2:46 am
M.R. v. [read post]
1 Jan 2013, 11:51 pm
On December 6th, 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its first judgment on the European order for payment procedure in Case C-215/11, Iwona Szyrocka v. [read post]
1 Jan 2013, 9:01 pm
Photo Credit: Stephanie Frey/Shutterstock.comMichael C. [read post]
1 Jan 2013, 7:27 pm
The Daily Record wrote up an article, 4th Circuit Backs Consumers Whose Cars Are Totaled which outlined a new decision in Decohen v. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 3:08 pm
The defendants then appealed both the liability and damages verdicts; however, in Saladino v. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 12:01 pm
In Case R 513/2011-2 Société des Produits Nestlé S.A v Cadbury Holdings Ltd, Nestlé appealed a decision of the Cancellation Division finding the three-dimensional Community trade mark, consisting of four trapezoidal bars aligned on a rectangular base for 'Sweets; bakery products, pastries, biscuits; cakes, waffles' in Class 30, was devoid of distinctive character and had therefore been invalidly registered contrary to Art. 7(1)(b), Reg. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 7:34 am
Support was found for this approach in the Court of Justice of the European Union decision in Gut Springenheide GmbH v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt—AMT für Lebensmittelüberwachung (Case C-210/96) [1998] ECR I-4657. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 4:27 am
Steven C. [read post]
29 Dec 2012, 9:31 am
In Petracca v. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 6:00 am
C. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 9:01 pm
C-Span will make filibusters, which only become more frivolous the longer they proceed, very conspicuous.) [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 11:15 am
Noting that the other prior analogous decisions have required that the subject form "specifically comply" with the requirements of §1731(c), the Superior Court in Jones found that, by adding a sentence to the form between the required language and the signature line, the Unitrin UIM rejection form did not "specifically comply" with §1731(c) as required by §1731 (c.1) and was, therefore, void. [read post]
26 Dec 2012, 11:14 am
Supreme Court issued its opinion in Arizona v. [read post]
25 Dec 2012, 9:01 pm
Heller in 2008, and McDonald v. [read post]
25 Dec 2012, 10:50 am
See Eaton v. [read post]
