Search for: "State v. Sweet" Results 881 - 900 of 972
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Aug 2020, 4:00 am by Administrator
Although advisory opinions have been prohibited in American federal courts since the late eighteenth century, several state supreme courts do accept requests for advisory opinions from state legislatures and/or the governor. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 10:42 am by Terry Hart
This is especially helpful because the legal and colloquial definitions of monopoly differ throughout history — the term means something different under the current Sherman Antitrust Act, to someone during the era of trust-busting in early 20th century United States, and to a jurist in 18th century England. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 4:20 am by Ben
Preska, Chief United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, rule [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 10:25 pm by IP Dragon
Professor Liu: "Taiwan and China developed differently; in Taiwan the state has become a neutral arbitrator for business, not a player in the economy as is the case in China. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 9:46 am by Lara
  Related Posts: Sweet & Nasty: False Advertising Suit over HFCS Grows Increasingly Sour Sugar v Corn Syrup: Bitter False Advertising Battle Plays Out in the Press Navajo Nation Fights Urban Outfitters over Tacky Trademark Infringement Moving on to New Beginnings: A Trademark Attorney’s Journey to Find Solace at the PTO Sorry I was Gone So Long (& a Look at Sorry Trademarks) [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 10:51 am
The rights and the duties of the Standing Committee, except as provided in the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention, may be prescribed by the Canons of the respective Dioceses.ARTICLE V. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 8:59 pm by TDot
Constitutional Law: Kelo v. [read post]
26 Jun 2010, 9:23 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Live checks have been banned/restricted in at least 6 states as too misleading. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 9:53 am by azatty
Beery, Deputy JUDGE PENDLETON GAINES FILED: 07/21/2006 PHYSICIANS CHOICE OF ARIZONA INC. v. [read post]