Search for: "Means v. Means" Results 81 - 100 of 98,320
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 May 2024, 2:08 pm by Ben Sperry
Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech and struck a blow against government censorship-by-proxy yesterday in NRA v. [read post]
31 May 2024, 12:30 pm by John Ross
And in cert denial news, we are sad that the Supreme Court will not take up Pollreis v. [read post]
31 May 2024, 5:55 am by Yousuf Syed Khan
In my work I have agreed with scholars who view both can be established through indirect or oblique intent, meaning that if the perpetrator knew or should have known with virtual certainty that their actions would likely result in starvation in the ordinary course of events, they may be held accountable. [read post]
31 May 2024, 4:29 am by Verena von Bomhard (BomhardIP)
The two earlier decisions that the GC refers to rather served to explain why the weakness of the earlier marks did not avoid confusion (the CJEU’s decision in case C‑235/05 P on FLEX v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 7:36 pm by Chris Rufo | New England Law, US
The Supreme Court decided Thursday that government officials cannot indirectly suppress free speech through coercion, reinforcing their previous decision in Bantam Books, Inc. v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 12:10 pm by Brett Trout
 This means you cannot obtain a patent, design or utility, on something that is merely an obvious modification of an already existing product. [read post]