Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 8561 - 8580 of 29,832
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Apr 2017, 4:53 am by Joy Waltemath
Sec. 626(f)(3) required the employer to defend the validity of the release agreements in court rather than in an arbitral forum as to the knowing and voluntary issue. [read post]
17 Apr 2017, 8:20 am by Rebecca Tushnet
However, it was reasonable to require defendants to cease using the old phone numbers.As for that disclaimer: though the court would allow defendants from to claim credit for the history and achievements of the corporate entity formerly named the California State Grange from 1946 to 2013, “unless the public is notified that defendants are not in fact the California State Grange there would be a strong probability of confusion. [read post]
16 Apr 2017, 8:30 am by Steve Kalar
Lockhart, 844 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2016), the facts of which are indistinguishable from this case. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 12:21 pm
Curlin, 638 F.3d 562, 564 (U.S. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 10:13 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931,934 (Fed. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 5:56 am by Jared Dummitt, Eliot Kim
” She stated that Beijing is committed to defending “its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, and safeguarding peace and stability there. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 2:00 pm by Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Indianapolis, Indiana – Her Imports f/k/a EZJR, Inc. sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution and trade dress infringement. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 2:00 pm by Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Indianapolis, Indiana – Her Imports f/k/a EZJR, Inc. sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution and trade dress infringement. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 7:08 am by The Swartz Law Firm
The cases cited by the defendant concerned material that contained sadistic or masochistic conduct directed at a minor, it is pure dicta to suggest the court would not have applied the enhancement if the violence were directed against towards the defendant. [read post]