Search for: "State v. Jacobs"
Results 1201 - 1220
of 1,970
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2017, 1:06 am
The distinctive dog deviceAzumi Ltd v Zuma's Choice Pet Products Ltd [2017] EWHC 609 is a case about a dog's purpose. [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 12:58 pm
Shane, Jacob E. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 6:08 am
It happened.The case is Porter v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
Sighted this morning, breaking the surface just off the Strand, the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in MedImmune v Novartis [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) certainly fits the legend.In characteristic style, the judgment is as comprehensive as one would wish. [read post]
27 Jan 2020, 3:58 am
The Point 128 LLC v Choi, decided earlier this month by Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Andrea Masley, did not involve a formal withdrawal notice and demand for payment of fair value as in Jacobs. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 2:05 am
Nike went after one end user for ordering Chinese counterfeit trainers via the Internet: EWPCC summary judgement in Nike v E Bateman (IP Dragon) Crosstown Music bitten by partial assignment of copyright: EWCA decision in Crosstown v Rive Droite & Ors (IP Whiteboard) Possibility of obtaining summary judgment in patent cases: Patents Court decision in Virgin Atlantic v Delta (Kluwer Patent Blog) Keeping down the price of copyright justice (1709 Blog) United… [read post]
15 Apr 2012, 4:05 am
Even before Smith, Aubrey Strode, the lawyer for the state in Buck v. [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 8:32 pm
Jacobs, 38 Misc. 781, 78 N.Y.S. 833; People ex rel. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 3:03 am
Jacobs v Cartalemi, __ AD3d __, 2017 NY Slip Op 08521 [2d Dept Dec. 6, 2017], in which the appellate court held that a minority member who voluntarily withdrew from the LLC was not entitled to a fair-value buyout under LLC Law § 509 based on the operating agreement’s superseding right-of-first-refusal provisions. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 3:52 pm
In Jacob LJ’s lead judgment, the precedents were considered - the main point taken from Peabody Donation Fund Governors v Grant [1982] 2 EGLR 37 CA, Swanbrae Ltd v Elliott (1987) 19 HLR 86 CA and Hildebrand v Moon (1990) 22 HR 1 CA was that ‘resides with’ carrys the meaning of ‘making their home there’ (Swanbrae), ‘more than live at’ (Swanbrae), ‘having made a home there (Hildebrand). [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 9:00 pm
Blackmon v. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 5:04 pm
United States, 200 U. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 11:58 pm
Paragraph [0003] of the Patent states that the invention is directed to chronic pain disorders. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 10:41 pm
See United States v. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 6:00 am
This generally hostile reception contrasts with the way many state supreme courts in the 1950s and 60s quickly adopted Berman v. [read post]
2 Jan 2008, 12:03 pm
Jacob J. stated, …at the commencement of trial, defendant’s counsel, Mr. [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 8:49 am
Saad in Saad v. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 7:38 am
More on Atkins v. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 2:40 am
As stated in the specification, the inventive feature is the space saving, self-elongating hose which axially expands when pressurised. [read post]
27 Oct 2022, 9:05 am
University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
