Search for: "US v. Barker"
Results 101 - 120
of 330
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Nov 2008, 4:04 pm
In Dale v. [read post]
3 May 2012, 11:00 am
In Tolbert v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 1:51 am
The same blog carries a note by JIPLP editorial board member Charles Macedo, with three of his colleagues, on "trade mark tacking" and the recent US Supreme Court ruling in Hana v Hana. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 7:49 am
The Court sent the case back for a correct evaluation of the factors to determine whether a hearing should be held.Judge Tjoflat concurred in a separate opinion in which he held that Bissell should not apply because its use of Barker v. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 5:00 am
A previous lawsuit, Vehicle Service Group, LLC v. [read post]
22 May 2007, 10:25 am
Can't use his wife's hardship again. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 7:12 pm
That topic has been popular theme from readers of our prior blog postings - especially on EEOC o/b/o Serrano, et al v. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 10:15 am
Barker, Judge Presiding.Affirmed.Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland.MEMORANDUM OPINIONCINDY OLSON BOURLAND, Justice.Appellant Shawn C. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 3:37 am
Barker, and I’d also discussed the oral argument on that in June. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 3:17 pm
I also shamelessly included Peter Barker’s very helpful 1996 exemption flowchart. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 3:17 pm
I also shamelessly included Peter Barker’s very helpful 1996 exemption flowchart. [read post]
20 Mar 2016, 4:00 am
Specialty Software Inc. v. [read post]
23 Aug 2007, 8:06 am
Volkswagen of America, Inc., 766 N.E.2d 574, 576-77 (N.Y. 2002); Barker v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 1:09 pm
A 1971 California case titled Barker v. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 4:25 pm
Barker, however, who cast the lone dissenting vote against issuing the Guidance, voiced concern that the Guidance goes beyond the jurisdiction of the EEOC, will negatively affect business owners, and did not receive sufficient public comment. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 8:25 am
Barker Boatworks, LLC, 898 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2018). [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 5:58 am
However, it has been explained as “using that process for a purpose or in a way significantly different from its ordinary and proper use” (Attorney General v Barker (2000)). [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 6:57 am
Campbell Barker, available in full here. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 11:18 am
In Mickey Ervin v. [read post]
