Search for: "US v. Smith"
Results 8901 - 8920
of 9,462
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Mar 2008, 7:00 am
Shame about the IP: (Afro-IP),Ethiopia receives US trade mark for Sidamo coffee despite opposition from Starbucks: (The IP Factor), (Afro-IP),CC licensed test for African sleeping sickness: (creativecommons.org),Update on PCT applications filed in Nigeria: (Afro-IP),Parallel imports of DVDs to be tested in South Africa: Universal City Studios v Mr Video: (Afro-IP),The W****D C*P of 2*1*: FIFA’s intellectual property rights in South Africa: (Afro-IP),Namibia to… [read post]
14 Mar 2008, 6:07 am
In Smith v. [read post]
14 Mar 2008, 1:47 am
In Smith v. [read post]
14 Mar 2008, 1:47 am
In Smith v. [read post]
13 Mar 2008, 7:00 am
The paper applies the analytical framework in Smith v. [read post]
12 Mar 2008, 12:52 pm
Do people have an expectation of privacy with regard to using the internet socially, and should they? [read post]
12 Mar 2008, 11:58 am
Norris v USA: judgment in full "He described the obstruction charge as "subsidiary" to the price-fixing charge that the law lords ruled was not an extraditable offence. [read post]
12 Mar 2008, 1:39 am
In Budnick v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 3:48 pm
So Rodriguez's post-invocation statements can be used against him, no? [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 1:10 pm
Ourreview of the record and of Georgia law persuades us the Masons cannotshoulder that burden. [read post]
8 Mar 2008, 7:06 pm
The paper applies the analytical framework in Smith v. [read post]
8 Mar 2008, 4:28 pm
The paper applies the analytical framework in Smith v. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 9:46 am
Smith v. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 1:01 am
Smith Desnoyer also known as Desnoyer Smith, Defendant-Appellant.2008 WL 602026(N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 12:12 pm
A “difference” apparently not even demonstrated in the circus-like antics of Broward County Judge Larry Seidlin, who presided over the Anna Nicole Smith probate proceeding). [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 7:00 am
In US. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2008, 9:05 am
Here are the unofficial summaries: US v. [read post]
2 Mar 2008, 1:18 pm
After Bainbridge first suggested Smith v. [read post]
28 Feb 2008, 12:44 pm
In the only judgment, Lord Justice Dyson rejects the need for an explicit reference to s.71(1), or required form of words, instead following R (on the application of Lisa Smith) v South Norfolk Council [2006] EWHC 2772 (Admin). [read post]
27 Feb 2008, 10:00 am
" [10] The petitioners argued that the respondents had opened themselves to liability under Rule 10b-5 by knowingly engaging in a scheme allowing Charter to make fraudulent statements to the SEC and the public. [11] Known as "scheme liability" actions, such actions came into use after the Supreme Court, in Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. [read post]
