Search for: "Taylor v. United States"
Results 1101 - 1120
of 1,434
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2015, 6:28 am
Kim, that under United States v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 4:20 am
Judge Elizabeth Magner, in McCain v Ocwen, ______________, stated that the evidence adduced i [read post]
31 Jan 2008, 9:30 am
United States; granted Feb. 20, 2007, argued Oct. 30, 2007) Shortest amount of time: 96 days (Meacham v. [read post]
21 Jan 2023, 11:40 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State as the employer in the Classified Service2 and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
21 Jan 2023, 11:40 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State as the employer in the Classified Service2 and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
8 May 2015, 9:18 am
United States, 14-419. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 7:32 am
United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 524 [9] Id at 544. [10] Olympic Committee Demands Local Gyro Stand Change Names (August 24, 2012) [11] Stop the Olympic Prison v. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 7:32 am
The Court summarily reversed in yet another qualified immunity case, Taylor v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 3:12 am
In Taylor & Lieberman v. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 4:30 pm
The trial in the case of Mark Lewis Law Ltd v Taylor Hampton Ltd continued on 30 and 31 October 2017 before Moulder J. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 6:49 am
United States and Barber v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog) Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
26 May 2009, 7:22 am
For example, In United States v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 9:17 pm
Finally, Taylor v. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 12:43 pm
State, 2009 WY 17, ¶ 3, 201 P.3d 434, 436 (Wyo. 2009); Harlow v. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
