Search for: "Boring v. State"
Results 1101 - 1120
of 1,917
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2022, 11:56 am
United States, Canales v. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 1:18 pm
Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit's decision in United States v. [read post]
12 Mar 2021, 5:58 am
In Vazeen v. [read post]
22 Jun 2021, 12:37 pm
In Richard Hunstein v. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 6:12 am
Reversing in part, the state high court reinstated the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. [read post]
23 Feb 2007, 2:24 am
Sas v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Limiñana y Botella, SL. [read post]
29 May 2015, 2:24 pm
Chatman, 14-8589, presented a knotty (read: boring) issue of habeas procedure. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 4:30 am
And now on to our little time-capsule case, Swisher v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 2:59 pm
Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“Starbucks V”) concluding that Starbucks failed to prove that the defendant’s use of the marks MISTER CHARBUCKS and CHARBUCKS BLEND is likely to dilute Starbucks’s famous marks including, of course, STARBUCKS. [read post]
22 May 2008, 7:06 am
When the Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2012, 9:01 pm
United States (appeals court applying heightened scrutiny only) A fifth case, Hollingsworth v. [read post]
21 Oct 2012, 9:01 pm
United States (appeals court applying heightened scrutiny only) A fifth case, Hollingsworth v. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 5:33 am
Once, he stated that he was `bored’ during the presentation of cell phone record evidence. [read post]
30 Sep 2024, 9:55 am
Where the court made no such finding here, and instead, improperly delegated the parenting time determination to the father, the error required reversalIn Matter of C.M. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 7:38 am
The state’s attorney dismissed both charges. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 12:53 pm
In XY, LLC v. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 7:40 am
Co. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 6:11 pm
New Mexico and Colorado v. [read post]
10 Oct 2021, 1:21 pm
In my judgment the reasoning of the House of Lords in Fahia (R v Harrow LBC, ex p Fahia(1998) 1 WLR 1396, HL) provides no basis for that contention, nor did the Court of Appeal in Begum (R. v. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 2:00 am
FDIC v. [read post]
