Search for: "In Re: Does v."
Results 9961 - 9980
of 30,140
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2017, 3:31 am
The 54-page decision by a Minnesota state court judge in Lund v Lund, Decision, Order & Judgment, No. 27-CV-14-20058 [Minn. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 2:00 am
See also, Celgard, LLC v. [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 1:31 pm
Port of London Authority v Paul Mendoza [2017] UKUT 146 (TCC). [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 12:14 pm
For example, in 2009 the Court held such a special session, to re-argue Citizens United v. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 10:33 pm
Unemployment Appeals*Board of Education v. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 8:48 pm
Berryhill (10th Cir., June 13, 2017) (affirming denial of Lopez's fee application under the Equal Access to Justice Act following his successful appeal; the decision appealed from, however, was substantially justified despite its being wrong)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 11:13 am
He does not deliver it from the bench. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 9:14 am
Schonekas The M/V HANNAH C. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 4:25 am
” In Turner v. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 3:00 am
Sovanarra Nop v. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 2:33 am
Rheinzink GmbH & Co., KG v. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 12:45 pm
In a case from last year, West Philadelphia Achievement Charter Elementary School v. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 8:52 am
Matal v. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 6:35 am
’ (§ 16470; accord, In re George W. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 5:04 am
V important. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 6:33 pm
What does that mean for taxpayers? [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 1:29 pm
The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 8:01 am
The Court evaluated the events in light of six factors that were developed by the Court in Davis & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 6:00 am
In Monday’s decision in the newly minted, Matal v. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 3:18 pm
See In re Old Glory Condom Corp., 26 USPQ 2d 1216, 1220, n. 3 (TTAB 1993) (‘[I]ssuance of a trademark registration . . . is not a government imprimatur’). [read post]
