Search for: "STATE v COOL" Results 981 - 1000 of 1,411
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 May 2011, 12:05 pm
. - While unanimously agreeing that induced patent infringement liability requires knowledge that the induced acts will infringe one or more patents, the United States Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in the Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., v. [read post]
16 May 2011, 3:14 am by Sean Wajert
Dex-Cool Prods., 241 F.R.D. 305, 313-314 (S.D.Ill.2007). [read post]
12 May 2011, 6:56 am by Prof. Coplan, Karl S.
Water Issues — EPA is taking comments on its highly regressive proposed cooling water intake rules, reissued under Clean Water Act section 316(b) after a previous version was struck down by the Second Circuit and affirmed in part Supreme Court in Entergy v Riverkeeper. [read post]
12 May 2011, 5:54 am by INFORRM
The judgment, for instance, states that the evidence “showed that the First Defendant, probably through her partner, had been negotiating with a newspaper group to sell intimate photographs and other information obtained in circumstances that were clearly private and in respect of which she owed the Claimant a duty of confidence”. [read post]
9 May 2011, 6:07 am by Steve McConnell
So when your client is sued in West Virginia state court, one of the first things to consider is removal.That's what happened in Hartman v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 8:20 am by Adam Wagner
And, in addition, a cool £537,885.20 in legal costs, which added to the £239,583 Hoare had spent himself. [read post]
24 Apr 2011, 4:18 am by Mandelman
” According to records obtained from Missouri’s Secretary of State, the St. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 4:00 am by pete.black@gmail.com (Peter Black)
" Unis reject state role in TEQSA" http://j.mp/ep7u2W this could be cool ... [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:19 am by Russ Bensing
  Courtesy of Legal Blogwatch, we’re directed to the recent opinion in US v. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 5:10 am by INFORRM
The Consultation Paper appears to take a slightly cool approach to proposals to limit the ability of corporations to sue in defamation. [read post]