Search for: "State v. Word"
Results 9681 - 9700
of 40,669
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Nov 2013, 3:08 pm
Rev. 693 (1976) --Poe v. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 5:44 am
The questions referred for a ruling are these: "Is Article 5, in conjunction with Article 7, of First Council Directive 89/104 ... to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [Naughty Danes! [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 12:31 pm
., v. [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 8:23 pm
As the Court noted in Lewis v. [read post]
24 May 2023, 1:33 am
The purchaser did not, by words or conduct, indicate that it would not perform in terms of the agreement. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 4:35 am
NYC's Administrative Code requires court to apply "more stringent requirements" in adjudicating civil rights law allegationsWilliams v New York City Hous. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 10:26 am
Rubber Co. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 8:22 am
On February 25, 2015, in the case of Miller v. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 9:03 pm
Lopez and United States v. [read post]
5 Aug 2021, 2:46 pm
Cal. 2020) (currently on appeal), and State v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
In United States v. [read post]
20 Jul 2018, 5:20 am
Even though the words of Article 13 are not expressly reflected in the English Trade Marks Act, the UK’s registrar of Trade Mark, whose task is to implement Article 13 on behalf of the State in Registry proceedings in the UK, must give effect to the binding provisions of Article 13. [read post]
31 May 2016, 5:37 am
Embed from Getty Images Last week, I blogged about the Southeast Caissons, LLC v. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 4:14 am
Whoever marks upon, or affixes to . . . any unpat- ented article, the word “patent” or any word or number importing that the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public . . . [read post]
9 Jan 2010, 11:03 pm
A case like State v. [read post]
27 Jun 2022, 8:57 am
That court knew how to use its words, and the words used were not “constitutional right. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 9:00 pm
Wade and of cases like Griswold v Connecticut, which recognized the right of married couples to use contraception, because the word privacy was not used in the Constitution. [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 1:59 pm
On 19 January, CAAF granted review in the case of United States v. [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 11:29 am
The issue of implied consent has been a hot topic in courts across the United States since the Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 3:15 pm
See Town of Barnstable, et al, v. [read post]
