Search for: "B Cunningham" Results 141 - 160 of 306
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Apr 2024, 9:07 am by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is set to consider the use of terms like “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” in commercial advertising can be actionable under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act when their use is not entirely accurate. [read post]
25 Dec 2017, 5:43 am by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
  See N.J.S.2C:35-5, subsection b., paragraph (12). [read post]
31 Jul 2016, 4:00 am by Administrator
Comments provided by Richard B. [read post]
9 Nov 2007, 6:16 pm
(b), count 4), and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 4:24 pm
In Lefkowitz v Cunningham, the Supreme Court noted that if a State compels testimony by threatening to inflict "potent" penalties, then that violates her constitutional rights. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 6:40 am by Michelle Almeida
 Iseman, Cunningham, Riester & Hyde, LLP 9 Thurlow TerraceAlbany, NY 12203(518) 462-3000 2649 South Road, Suite 100Poughkeepsie, NY 12601(845) 473-8100 This article has been prepared for the general information of ICRH? [read post]
5 Feb 2007, 9:21 am
§ 2K2.1(b)(5) (use of firearm in connection with another felony offense), based on finding that defendant committed aggravated assault. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 12:24 pm by Ken Chan
” Sanchez accused Nickelodeon and Nickelodeon Consumer Products of colluding with her talent agency Cunningham-Escott-Slevin-Doherty Talent Agency, Inc. and her agent Jason Bercy to induce her to sign an allegedly unconscionable contract “with convoluted, vague, incomplete, and misrepresented terms. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 7:07 am by Jordan Duenckel
At the Federal Circuit, Judge Lourie, writing for a unanimous panel of Judges Cunningham and Stark, focuses on the unexpected potency of apremilast discovered relative to the apremilast-containing racemic mixture during testing and experimentation. [read post]
14 Apr 2022, 8:14 am by Dan Bressler
Morgan ruled that Section 455(b) requires recusal only if a judge has actual knowledge of the financial interest. [read post]