Search for: "Smith v. General Apartment Co." Results 81 - 100 of 125
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Sep 2012, 11:36 am by Bexis
 Smith-Kline Beecham Corp., 658 N.W.2d 127, 130-31 (Mich. 2003).Following Buckman Co. v. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 2:31 am by tekEditor
  To put it in perspective, my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touchin 1984 (Lee, Buxton & Smith, 1985), the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 7:13 am by admin
  Frankly, I’m not sure how many New York co-op owners could pass these tests. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 8:43 am by Joel R. Brandes
Downward Modification of Child Support Based on a Loss of Employment Due to Injury Granted Where Father Demonstrated Injuries Severely Limited His Ability to Resume His Veterinary Practice In Smith v Smith, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2012 WL 88100 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) pursuant to a 2002 judgment of divorce, defendant (mother) was awarded sole custody of the parties' four children. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 6:18 am by Legal Beagle
Buried on Page 85 of Lord Nimmo Smith’s report, it states : “The Advocate Depute telephoned the Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser, who was in London. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 5:54 am by Rob Robinson
 bit.ly/zwruTK (Ron Friedmann) Cost of Converting (Electronically Stored Information) Jardin v. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 8:09 am by admin
Smith   Yesterday’s post explored the economic intrusiveness of income verification via Alphonse Fletcher’s attempt to buy a fifth apartment in New York City’s Dakota co-operative, and the New York Times‘s salacious reportage about the board’s decision to deny the application based (they said) on their doubts about his financial wherewithal. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 8:36 am by Aparna Chandra
I have co-authored this post with Mrinal Satish, JSD Candidate at Yale Law School. [read post]
12 Feb 2011, 7:28 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Relatedly, compare the treatment of imitative trade dress to “compare to Brand X” messages—courts are not suspicious of the latter on trademark grounds and haven’t been since Smith v. [read post]