Search for: "SPRINKLE v STATE"
Results 101 - 120
of 153
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Aug 2011, 5:00 am
* * * Back in March of this year, the United States Supreme Court in Staub v. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 11:57 am
CyberSource v. [read post]
24 Jul 2011, 11:13 pm
Palazzo Resort (Trademark Blog of the Trademark Lawyer’s Mind ) Sprinkles Cupcakes – Sprinkles Cupcakes wages trademark lawsuit: Sprinkles Cupcakes v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 2:06 pm
" These are sometimes problematic terms that have required the attention of the United States Supreme Court in recent years, see Wall v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 8:34 pm
Ferguson and Brown v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 4:36 am
Dukes v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 12:47 pm
The issue is the kind of lawsuit that the states are pursuing. [read post]
13 May 2011, 1:33 pm
The sobering result: the thesis was sprinkled with deliberate plagiarism. [read post]
2 May 2011, 10:52 am
” The decision in Montana v. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 12:01 am
Henry v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 8:19 am
Sugano, which states (in the context of a constructive reduction to practice in an interference) that "envisioning" an invention may not be sufficient (see, Goeddel v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 8:19 am
Sugano, which states (in the context of a constructive reduction to practice in an interference) that "envisioning" an invention may not be sufficient (see, Goeddel v. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 5:22 pm
Monday in the case of Montana v. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 10:47 am
By Kent Sprinkle On December 6, 2010, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would review the Ninth Circuit's class certification order in the Dukes v. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 7:06 am
State v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 2:26 pm
On Tuesday, the Court ordered oral argument “in due course” — likely during the current Term — on a key aspect of the nearly four-year-old case of Montana v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 9:17 am
Read on and find out......Kuvin v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 5:56 pm
US v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 1:05 am
In Berkoff v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 12:18 pm
For example, Judge Fernandez doesn't like the off-the-record assumptions that are sprinkled throughout Judge Kozinski's opinion; e.g., that “[c]onsumers who use the internet for shopping are generally quite sophisticated" or that such people “would arrive at the Tabaris’ site agnostic as to what they would find. [read post]
