Search for: "Fisher v. State "
Results 1201 - 1220
of 2,027
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 May 2012, 4:23 am
, Bethel v. [read post]
23 May 2012, 8:17 am
The 2002 ruling by the 9th Circuit came in the case, California First Amendment Coalition v. [read post]
21 May 2012, 8:00 am
In DeLuca v. [read post]
18 May 2012, 11:43 am
” The Project on Fair Representation is also behind the affirmative action challenge that the Supreme Court has decided to hear next term: Fisher v. [read post]
17 May 2012, 9:28 am
” This fight over Brown is sure to continue next Term, when the Justices consider Fisher v. [read post]
12 May 2012, 9:04 am
Fisher ( 270 Cal. [read post]
7 May 2012, 9:34 am
Crosby v. [read post]
2 May 2012, 3:05 pm
Fisher writes: After the September 11, 2011 attacks on the United States, the government detained Jose Padilla, an American citizen, as an enemy combatant. [read post]
2 May 2012, 7:13 am
And at the New Yorker’s Daily Comment blog, Jeffrey Toobin discusses Fisher v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 1:43 pm
UPI’s Michael Kirkland previews one of next Term’s cases, Fisher v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 8:03 am
Fisher CompuCredit Corp. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2012, 6:33 am
Supreme Court in Fisher v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 8:51 am
— Fisher v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 6:39 am
The Daily Texan reports that the University of Texas has hired the firm of Latham & Watkins to represent the University in Fisher v. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 1:30 pm
(Eugene Volokh) In yesterday’s Fisher v. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 6:28 pm
Gucci's trademark lawyers presented even more ammunition explaining that Marc Fisher Footwear received four cease and desist letters in 2008 from Coach, Adidas, Jimmy Choo, and Yves Saint Laurent accusing Fisher of infringing on designs. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 3:15 am
Fisher 36 AD3d 486 (1 Dept 2007), but see, Scarborough v Napoli, Kaiser & Bern,LLP, 63 AD3d 1531 [4th Dept 2009); Izko Sportswear CQ,. [read post]
8 Apr 2012, 3:32 pm
The plaintiffs in the case are Louis V. [read post]
8 Apr 2012, 8:55 am
Of course, there is still that pesky little confusion test for Gucci, which in the Second Circuit is the Polaroid Crop v Polarad Elecs Corp (1961) test (see test here as applied to another famous shoe battle, Louboutin v YSL). [read post]
