Search for: "GRAY v. GRAY"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 2,721
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Oct 2014, 8:25 am
Gray, 251 N.Y. 90, 167 N.E. 181 (1929) (Establishes the “dual-purpose” doctrine.) [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 3:00 am
(IP Factor) Netherlands: Court of Appeal, The Hague: Costs of procedure : Lundbeck v Tiefenbacher, Centrafarm Services and Ratiopharm (EPLAW) Poland: First judgment on differences between sponsorship and advertising of pharmaceutical product (Class 46) US: USPTO to begin recalculating patent term following Wyeth v Kappos (Patently-O) (Patent Docs) US: CAFC confirms PTO is miscalculating (undercalculating) delays in prosecution and the corresponding patent term adjustment: Wyeth… [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 7:30 am
Jeff Peterson, an attorney with Gray, Plant, Mooty (St. [read post]
11 Jul 2023, 6:39 am
Finally, in Gray v. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 12:00 pm
” As a result, “the darker and bolded text of the hyperlinked ‘Terms of Service’ adequately contrasts with the light gray background. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 11:28 am
Littell v. [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 3:04 am
The panel of experts (Kate O’rourke Mbe Senior Counsel, Charles Russell Speechlys; Simon Gray Partner, Tomkins; Simon Malynicz Qc Barrister, 3 New Square; Dominic Farnsworth Partner, Lewis Silkin) considered such questions as: Where are we now? [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 5:17 pm
Gray, 122 N.C. 699, 707, 30 S.E. 304, 304-05 (1898)). [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 9:29 am
See Gray v. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 1:01 am
But as Rutgers Professor of Law and Sidney Reitman Scholar James Gray Pope wrote persuasively in “Snubbed Landmark: Why United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2009, 7:44 am
The Opinion is in Brown Brothers Harriman Trust Co. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 4:04 pm
The court cites to US v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 1:47 am
Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Gray v B. [read post]
15 May 2012, 2:43 am
Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Gray v B. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 1:19 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Apr 2019, 7:54 am
Germany, Jr. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 12:57 pm
Mauro, 2011 BCSC 512, and by Gray J. in Enns v. [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 5:30 am
On the other hand, it has been suggested that the decision in Callery v Gray approving a figure as a reasonable premium in road traffic cases at the time has set that figure as a base-line and has resulted in the eradication of downward pressure in the market; and that the requirement for a Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil statement does not in practice ensure that premiums are competitive".Later the Report observes: "In Callery v Gray (Nos 1 and 2)… [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 8:21 am
U.S. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 1:30 am
Although the “folk belief” is that trial by jury is less favourable to the defendant, a number of the recent applications for trials by judge alone (Gregson, Charman v Orion 17 June 2005; Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston [2007] EWHC 2328 (QB), Gentoo v Hanratty ([2008] EWHC 2328 (QB)) have been made by claimants. [read post]
