Search for: "STATE v B J J J"
Results 1521 - 1540
of 6,787
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2015, 1:39 am
Kerr LJ stated that, at the least, “it cannot be said that it was plainly not open” to Hamblen J to reach the conclusion he did, and therefore the Court of Appeal should not have interfered with his judgment to that effect. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 12:36 pm
| 3-D Lego trade mark | Garcia v Google | B+ subgroup | EU trade mark reform and counterfeits in transit | French v Battistelli | US v Canada over piracy | UK Supreme Court in Starbucks | BASCA v The Secretary of State for Business | Patent litigation, music, politics | Product placement in Japan.Never too late 50 [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 1:29 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 4:27 am
Rost v. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 6:49 am
Co. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 7:53 am
(Kagan, J., recused) [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 7:29 pm
Editor’s Note: Thanks to Edward J. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 11:22 am
Irving J. [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 3:39 pm
” (To support the nationwide injunction, Washington argued that immigration law had to be uniform; ironically, the state had opposed this exact argument in United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 5:50 am
WHITE, J., presentó una opinión disidente, [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 10:14 am
Dept. of Employment v. [read post]
20 Dec 2006, 2:15 pm
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
In DiBattista v County of Westchester* New York State Supreme Court Justice Joan B. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
In DiBattista v County of Westchester* New York State Supreme Court Justice Joan B. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
In DiBattista v County of Westchester* New York State Supreme Court Justice Joan B. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
In DiBattista v County of Westchester* New York State Supreme Court Justice Joan B. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 9:00 am
Last February, the United States Supreme Court added another layer to its punitive damages jurisprudence in Philip Morris USA v. [read post]
26 Jun 2007, 10:18 am
Leonard J. [read post]
12 Sep 2021, 3:10 am
On this third point, Mr Justice Birss (as he then was) provided an explanation as to the German injunction gap and the interaction with UK patent proceedings at [14]-[19] of his decision, summarizing previous decisions (HTC v Apple, ZTE, v Ericsson, Garmin v Phillips) where Mr Justice Arnold (as he then was) consistently expressed the view that the presence of a possible German injunction gap "was a factor to take into account". [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 10:19 am
The term "Terry frisks" comes from the Supreme Court decision Terry v. [read post]
