Search for: "Bunch v State" Results 1541 - 1560 of 1,617
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Feb 2012, 5:40 am by David Post
  A bunch of information junkies who’ve gotten hooked on free music and free movies sticking it to the Man? [read post]
12 Nov 2011, 12:56 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
His work is going towards First Amendment because the other alternatives won’t get the job done and the present solution risks a serious chill.53 cell phone search cases found in his search for reported opinions after Arizona v. [read post]
10 May 2012, 11:53 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  It is increasingly the case that judges at pretty much every level have lost the presumption of good faith and proper recordkeeping they traditionally accorded to large, economically significant institutions, because those institutions didn’t invest in keeping records that actually tracked who owned what, and then faked a bunch of documents to cover up that fact. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 12:30 pm by John Ross
And also, a starkly different holding from the Tenth Circuit in the wake of Egbert v. [read post]
9 Dec 2006, 4:41 pm
The 2006 amendment preempts state and federal dilution actions against federally registered marks, which also helps big TM owners. [read post]
20 May 2015, 12:19 pm
This morning, the Sixth Circuit handed down a new case, United States v. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 5:25 am
" There were no barriers in US TM law, because of decisions like 1968's Chanel v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 9:51 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Collateral concerns about tampering are illegal under a whole bunch of laws. [read post]
25 Jul 2024, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman and Linda C. McClain
Vance stated: We are effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too. [read post]
14 Aug 2007, 9:41 am
Let us start today with an August 3, 2007 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia -- the court that Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and John Roberts sat on before they were anointed to the Supreme Court as a reward for their reactionaryism -- in a case called Abigail Alliance For Better Access To Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach . [read post]