Search for: "BALL v. STATE"
Results 1381 - 1400
of 2,087
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2022, 3:23 pm
Circuit, about which the NYT writes: At least two climate cases are pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 6:45 am
Newman v. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 7:59 am
Ball State University (11-556), seeks clarification of when an employer may be held legally to blame for sexual harassment by a co-employee of the victim who has some workplace control over the victim’s daily chores. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 3:00 am
Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down Roe v. [read post]
10 May 2015, 4:19 pm
Mitre Sports International claimed that its reputation was damaged in a report that featured children stitching Mitre soccer balls. [read post]
18 Sep 2020, 6:13 pm
In 1996, she wrote the decision in United States v. [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 9:59 am
She wrote the Court’s majority opinion in United States v. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 10:27 am
Some "balls and strikes. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 5:58 am
(Trademark Blog) (Property, intangible) US Trade Marks – Decisions Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturns State anti-counterfeiting law: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Omar (IP Spotlight Precedential no. 39: TTAB reverses 2(d) refusal of VOLTA for caffeine-laced vodka: In re White Rock Distilleries, Inc (TTABlog) Test your TTAB eye-ball ability on two triangle design marks for clothing: L.A. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 9:32 am
S196568, and Wisdom v. [read post]
27 Nov 2019, 11:54 am
” (Ball v. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 6:37 am
At the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Jess Bravin covers Reichle v. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 1:40 pm
See also United States v. [read post]
15 Dec 2007, 4:40 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Dec 2010, 4:37 pm
Virginia, and Brown v. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 1:13 pm
After Williams v. [read post]
12 May 2015, 10:24 am
The Court also declined to rely on a 1953 state appellate decision, Fruit Machinery Co. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 9:41 am
In his reference, the Judge trotted through the English court's and CJEU's case law Article 3(a) - Takeda, Farmitalia, Daiichi, Yeda, Medeva (and its progeny), Actavis v Sanofi, Eli Lilly v HGS, Actavis v Boehringer, - and found that it was clear that something more was required, but what that "something" was was not clear. [read post]
23 May 2011, 4:00 am
In Barnhill v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 7:00 am
• Thomas V. [read post]
