Search for: "MAY v. US "
Results 8881 - 8900
of 120,387
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 May 2009, 2:02 pm
Call us now: J.G. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 7:53 am
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (“[T]he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of the procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. [read post]
12 May 2024, 1:20 am
US Commission on International Religious Freedom: Annual Report, May 2024. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 4:30 am
Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 7:20 am
Although there are few reliable estimates of the prevalence of HSDD, the product, as with others, is all but certain to be used off-label among a broader population of women than has been studied, many of whom may not fulfill formal diagnostic criteria for HSDD and many of whom may have conditions or concomitant medication use that increases the risk of adverse events. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 3:30 am
It would also codify the outcome of Bostock v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 10:26 am
Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OT 2008) US v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 10:26 am
Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OT 2008) US v. [read post]
9 May 2019, 1:17 am
This issue is rarely litigated extensively in the courts, but a recent case in the US Court of Appeals took it on again and giving us yet more insight into how the courts determine if a trademark is generic or not.The case of Booking.com BV v USPTO concerned applications by Booking.com to register the name "BOOKING.COM" in a few variations. [read post]
9 May 2019, 1:17 am
This issue is rarely litigated extensively in the courts, but a recent case in the US Court of Appeals took it on again and giving us yet more insight into how the courts determine if a trademark is generic or not.The case of Booking.com BV v USPTO concerned applications by Booking.com to register the name "BOOKING.COM" in a few variations. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 7:10 am
This concept is being challenged again in Ball v. [read post]
3 May 2012, 10:44 pm
The question of whether someone who has been found to not be criminally responsible because of a mental disorder (or to use the older language, is not guilty by reason of insanity) of killing another may collect life insurance on the deceased’s life was recently considered by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Dhingra v. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 4:00 am
It mainly presupposes the individual’s right to control the use of that image, including the right to refuse publication. [read post]
12 Aug 2022, 9:24 am
Facebook Entry and Blog Post May Support Retaliation Claim – Stewart v. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 7:23 am
” Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 12:31 pm
While contractors should address the latter point, they may also wish to note that under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Food Marketing Institute v. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 11:48 am
In Amaral v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 6:50 am
See Murray v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 1:46 am
[IPKat comment: 2 huge problems with this - (1) all these factors go towards showing that there's a link between the marks, but they don't really show that the link has 'rubbed off' on the later mark to give its owner an unfair advantage; (2) these are the factors that were used in relation to detriment to distinctive character, but the court has just said that these are two different types of harm; (3) the ECJ in Intel v CPM said such factors are insufficient… [read post]
