Search for: "Coke v. State" Results 121 - 140 of 474
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Mar 2017, 6:02 am by Dennis Crouch
Standard Folding Bed Co., 157 U.S. 659 (1895). [10] In the paper, I expand on Judge Taranto’s and Professors Duffy and Hynes’ arguments that Justice Breyer’s citation to Lord Coke’s 1628 Institutes in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 4:31 am by SHG
Some would argue that to blame the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, but not the Supreme Court’s decision in Mistretta v. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 5:01 am by Kit Case
This case represents a subtle but real shift from current 8th Circuit law as stated in Fjellestad v. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 4:00 am by Jon Gelman
This case represents a subtle but real shift from current 8th Circuit law as stated in Fjellestad v. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 2:05 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
., Mary Ann Glendon—an interesting debate on the right over what IP is and whether it’s a right; Julie Cohen: rights talk in privacy v. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 8:40 am by Tiffany Blofield
  Congress should be able to discourage negative advertising by not registering a trademark such as “Coke Stinks. [read post]
22 Jan 2017, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
Chief Justice Hughes in the 1932 case Crowell v. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 11:13 am by Jon Ibanez
However, the California Court of Appeals in People v. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 5:01 am
 The citation is R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin). [read post]
12 Oct 2016, 10:02 am by Robert Laplaca
Disclose, disclose, disclose: All ads must state all limiting conditions. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 5:47 am by SHG
State, supra; or driving on an interstate, see Clatt v. [read post]
10 Sep 2016, 11:14 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Tasting the TM in Pepsi/Coke studies.What we know about brands v. what we know about TMs—Deven Desai has written about the distinction and the lack thereof that has been part of the problem. [read post]