Search for: "COLAS V. STATE"
Results 61 - 80
of 626
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Mar 2007, 11:14 pm
Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 1:41 pm
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 1:34 pm
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 2:15 am
The orders may also provide you with a useful starting point for discovery requests: Coca-Cola Company v Pepsico Inc [2011] FCA 1069 [read post]
14 Aug 2007, 10:48 am
The Supreme Court was precise in stating in Hilton v. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 11:03 am
The CJEU stated that European Union law does not preclude the proprietor of a national trademark from opposing the import of identical goods bearing the same trade mark and coming from another Member State, in which said trade mark, which initially belonged to the same proprietor, is currently owned by a third party. [read post]
3 Nov 2014, 9:48 am
Coca-Cola sought dismissal of POM’s Lanhan Act and state law claims on the grounds that because its labeling complied with the requirement of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), POM’s claims were precluded. [read post]
8 May 2023, 6:11 am
” “Galderma had asked V&E to withdraw, but it refused, citing a conflicts waiver that was part of the engagement letter Galderma had signed. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 5:02 am
Of course, 'the court and its personnel' are usually allowed recipients but that phrase does not mean 'the court, its personnel, and the public.' Otherwise, the recipe for Coca-Cola or any other highly private information could be blurted out in open court. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 4:00 am
The Coca Cola Co., No. 12-761 (U.S.). [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 9:00 am
In David Swartz, et al., v. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 10:45 am
See Ackerman v. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 6:26 am
See Ackerman v. [read post]
9 May 2013, 6:08 am
Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in Owusu-Ansah v. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 7:22 am
State v. [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 7:08 am
Although Coca-Cola argued that his state-law claims were preempted by LMRA Section 301 because they could not be resolved without analyzing the CBAs, it conceded that neither CBA contained any term relating to the safeguarding of personal information so any independent agreement on that topic would not conflict with the terms of the bargaining agreements. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 5:18 am
See Mason v. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 10:15 am
Nautilus, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 6:09 am
He allegedly became agitated during the meeting, banged his hand on the table where they sat, and said that “someone is going to pay for this” (Owusu-Ansah v The Coca-Cola Company, 11th Cir, May 8, 2013). [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 9:16 pm
Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. [read post]
