Search for: "Given et al v. Love"
Results 141 - 160
of 192
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jan 2012, 2:32 pm
Alt-N Technologies, et al., 6:10cv457 (1/11/12) Judge: Leonard Davis Holding: Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Set a Mini-Markman and Motion for Summary Judgment Schedule and Hearing DENIED I was torn between the pigs/hogs analogy and the memorable scene in Princess Bride, but I have to go with the latter. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 2:15 pm
Okay, so here’s the next installment of Mandelman’s Monthly Museletter, which I’ve decided I post whenever there are a bunch of things going on that need to be put into proper perspective, but there’s just no way I can write individual articles on each because to do so presents a serious health risk. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 10:07 am
In the past 3 years I have tried a pedagogical experiment in first year civil procedue that I thought I'd share, and on which I'd love feedback. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 1:32 am
In 2001, the case of Golan et al v Holder was brought by a collection of plaintiffs, including orchestra conductors, educators, performers, motion picture distributors and publishers against the United States government alleging that Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA)- section 104A and 109 of the Copyright Act - is unconstitutional. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 4:00 am
Eaton v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 8:33 am
Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558) Is a fully briefed Eighth Circuit appeal that will be ignored by the United States Courts because of being pro se and IFP. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 11:06 am
That question was answered in 1936, by the Beaumont Court of Appeals in the case, Love et al. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 6:08 pm
Edward Griffin et al. v. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 4:53 pm
However, as your lawyer can explain to you, you can still probably bring a claim for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (California Business & Professions Code 17200 et al.) and/or for penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act (California Labor Code § 2698 et al.). [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 10:12 am
Dan Kahan et al.: SCt said no reasonable jury could find other than that the police officers in this high speed chase acted reasonably, but Kahan found significant variation in evaluations of reasonableness based on salient demographics. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 6:33 am
In answer to my own not so jocular question in the title, the answer is, I truely don't know..So the long awaited decision in Newzbin 2 aka Twentieth Century Fox et al v BT [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) is out. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 5:23 pm
” See: Gomes v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 7:25 pm
Karlseng v. [read post]
9 Apr 2011, 3:48 pm
See Nobelman v. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 11:12 pm
AT&T, Inc., et. al. [read post]
19 Feb 2011, 12:19 pm
Acuity Investment Management Inc. et al. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 4:08 am
North Jersey Media Group d/b/a The Record et al. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 5:52 am
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., et. al., 6-10-cv-00229 (TXED December 6, 2010, Order) (Love, M.J.) [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 9:07 am
And it is undisputed that Google responded to Rosetta Stone’s complaints about ads that were not in compliance with Google’s policies. ______ The case library: * Google's opening response brief * UK Intellectual Property Law Society amicus brief in support of neither party * Rosetta Stone's opening appellate brief: redacted and unredacted. * INTA's amicus brief in favor of Rosetta Stone. * Carfax et al amicus brief in favor of Rosetta Stone. *… [read post]
31 Oct 2010, 7:19 pm
Cheek et al. v. [read post]
