Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 7721 - 7740
of 15,316
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Feb 2015, 12:50 am
§ 77p(c) (“Section 77p(c)”). [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 4:31 pm
Circuit stated: Nor are Shea’s policy arguments persuasive. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 10:00 am
TransUnion, 14 C 1850 (N.D. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 5:48 am
C. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:18 am
Among the many things he said are these:* Citing Case C-145/05 Levi Strauss & Co v Casucci SpA [2006] ECR I-3703. he observed that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had held that the question of trade mark infringement fell to be assessed as at the operative date, this being the date from which the use of the sign began. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 12:09 pm
“Employer “play-or-pay” mandate Employer reporting on the B and C Forms Employee/Independent Contractor Classification Issues More Welfare Benefits Committee Co-Chairs Ms. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(1). [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 6:36 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 4:59 am
R(Anon) v LB Southwark (Claim No CO/2035/2014 – settled by consent) Courtesy of Hansen Palomares Solicitors comes news of this settled Judicial Review of LB Southwark’s gatekeeping practices on homeless applications. [read post]
21 Feb 2015, 1:57 pm
See State v. [read post]
21 Feb 2015, 12:01 am
In Rasul v. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 7:44 am
Wilson v. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 9:53 pm
NeuroRepair’s suit would not “necessarily raise” issues of patent law; B. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 2:37 pm
The CJEU’s ruling in DHL v ChronopostThe CJEU made it manifestly clear in its 2011 ruling in Case C-235/09 DHL v Chronopost [see previous Katpost here] that a Europe-wide injunction should only be granted in order to ensure that the proprietor can protect his trade mark, prohibiting only uses which affect or are liable to affect the functions of the trade mark. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 10:04 am
The Brad Hendricks Law Firm, by: Caroline C. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 9:01 am
Ohio State University v. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 5:28 am
Fringe Insurance Benefits, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 1:30 pm
§ 14501(c)(1), and therefore unconstitutional. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 10:50 am
Code Regs., § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sacramento Old City Assn. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 7:12 am
It is well settled that a defendant's statutory right to testify before the grand jury " must be scrupulously protected' " (People v Smith, 87 NY2d 715, 721, quoting People v Corrigan, 80 NY2d 326, 332). [read post]
