Search for: "Johnson M. v. State" Results 1301 - 1320 of 1,488
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Apr 2009, 9:27 am
(Promote the Progress) N D Illinois one step closer to adopting patent rules (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) Innovate Texas Foundation launched to accelerate state’s IP commercialisation (Technology Transfer Tactics) Special Masters a [read post]
7 Apr 2009, 12:44 pm
Rev. 480 (1990), has been cited for the proposition that the brief that Dawn Johnsen wrote in Webster v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 1:01 pm
I'm sure the way the court of appeals or the defendant framed the issue had nothing to do with the way the State sought discretionary review. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 1:50 am
Johnson, Director, and Charles F. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 7:44 am by Roshonda Scipio
AUTHOR Tushnet, Mark V., 1945- TITLE The constitution of the United States of America : a contextual analysis / Mark Tushnet. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 6:43 am
  Thanks to some very effective advocacy by Eric Creizman and fair-minded sentencing by EDNY Judge Johnson, we have an important precedent in United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 3:17 pm
As this was not a mortgage or security charge, the contractual and equitable right to redeem, Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat and Cold Storage Company Limited [1914] AC 25, did not arise; Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Limited [1992] BCC 270, Lavin v Johnson [2002] EWCA Civ 1138 and Dutton v Davis [2006] EWCA Civ 694 followed. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
(BLOG@IP::JUR) Changes to EPO fee structure, 1 April 2009 (BLOG@IP::JUR) (Patent Baristas) Changes of patent culture (BLOG@IP::JUR) MARQUES 3rd annual review of community design case law (Managing Intellectual Property) PDO amendment – Chabichou du Poitou (Class 46)   France French trade marks database opens publicly on 3 April 2009 (Class 46) Union pour un Mouvement Populaire to compensate MGMT for use of song ‘Kids’ at party rallies without seeking permission… [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 1:26 pm
Judge Johnson, writing for the majority distinguished this case from Lopez v. [read post]