Search for: "Johnson v. Clark" Results 141 - 160 of 358
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Nov 2008, 6:12 am
Topics featured in this issue include the following:* Gillian Davies, formerly of the European Patent Office and now a barrister in Hogarth Chambers, summarises significant decisions of the EPO boards of appeal in 2007;* Birgit Clark (Boult Wade Tennant) discusses the German Bundesgerichtshof COOL WATER/ICY COLD decision on the legitimacy or otherwise of allusive product names as a means of comparative advertising for imitative perfumes;* Marianne Schaffner and Sandra Georges (from… [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 9:45 am by Barbara Moreno
Forsythe, Clarke D., Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 4:23 am by Edith Roberts
Kevin Johnson previewed the case for this blog. [read post]
8 Nov 2006, 6:31 am
Johnson FL-16 Tim Mahoney (Foley open) FL-22 Ron Klein v. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 2:10 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The panel will be Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson and Lord Hodge. [read post]
14 Mar 2025, 9:05 pm by Karson Taylor
Johnson argues that some courts wrongly hold that student-employees are only either students or employees. [read post]
23 Dec 2018, 7:53 am by Wolfgang Demino
Also see ---> Private student loan collection suit not removable to federal court (addressing state vs. federal jurisdiction issue in context of original collection suit; sanctions imposed for improper removal in Richards v. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 4:40 pm
Padilla (PDF), 542 U.S. 426 (2004) Johnson v. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 9:00 am by P. Andrew Torrez
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit issued its ruling in Young v. [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 12:42 pm by Norman L. Eisen
Perry’s plan appeared to be succeeding, as Trump offered Clark the position of Acting Attorney General, Clark said he would accept, and the White House call logs referred to Clark under that new title. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 3:30 am by ASAD KHAN
Without a doubt, the appellants must surely be equally delighted with the outcome in their case because Lady Hale and Lords Neuberger, Kerr, Clarke and Reed unanimously held that the burden of proving a “marriage of convenience” falls on the Home Office. [read post]