Search for: "Mark Fish v. State"
Results 81 - 100
of 455
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Mar 2019, 12:10 pm
On September 21, 2011 Mark Fabiano, then 49 years old, was injured when he fell 18 feet to the pavement from a scaffold that he was helping to erect under a New York State Thruway bridge in Catskill. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 4:54 am
Nola Spice Designs, LLC v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 8:45 am
Taiwanese Deputy Foreign Minister Bruce Linghu announced a media tour of Taiping (Itu Aba), which took place on Wednesday, as part of a larger diplomatic blitz in advance of the upcoming merits decision in the Philippines v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 2:10 pm
We’ve always been of the opinion that the rationale for preemption in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 6:21 pm
District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (Humane Society of the United States v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 7:21 am
Tri-State Energy Solutions, LLP v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 5:44 pm
, SAY AND SING, FISH AND SAY, FISH & SAY, SORT AND SAY, SORT & SAY, and SAY AND SORT marks for children’s language therapy materials. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 5:27 pm
This decision comes close on the heels of Lum v. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 2:39 pm
The Recordnet.com reports on the non-capital referral decision in United States v. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 4:22 am
United States, in which the justices considered the scope of tribal fishing rights, comes from Miriam Seifter. [read post]
8 Jan 2012, 6:00 am
Goes back 4 years to Obama v. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 8:06 am
” Accordingly, in the court’s view, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Trump v. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 8:43 am
If the defendant isn’t offering a good or service in commerce, how can he have used the plaintiff’s mark IN COMMERCE? [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 3:48 am
” Additional commentary comes from Mark Miller at the Pacific Legal Foundation Blog. [read post]
5 May 2006, 9:02 am
Important to the court's decision was that use of the CAJUN BOY and CAJUN DELIGHT marks was not actually or inherently misleading as to Chinese-raised fish, as required by Central Hudson, but only "potentially" misleading, in light of the fact that the plaintiff clearly labeled its packages "Product of China. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 4:30 am
A fairly remarkable example is Johnson v. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 10:34 am
Mark Holsten, Civil No. 06-3776 (MJD/RLE) (D. [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 3:00 pm
Related Cases: Center for Genetics and Society v. [read post]
12 Sep 2019, 1:42 pm
Part of the explanation for the repeal notes that the 2015 Rule exceeded the authority granted to the agencies by Congress by adopting an interpretation of the “significant nexus” test provided by Justice Kennedy in his concurrence in Rapanos v. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 11:00 am
Industria De Alimentos Zenu S.A.S. v. [read post]
