Search for: "Carter v. Carter"
Results 1681 - 1700
of 2,892
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2011, 10:41 am
This brief journey down memory lane just goes to show that over the past two *cough* years, everything changes, but everything stays the same be it in music or in IP law.Lawyer Barbie back in the Federal Circuit dealing with Bratz - Something else that has not changed all that much from last year is the continuation of the Barbie v Bratz battle (previously reported by the AmeriKat here) which last week heard the parties' opening arguments in Californian federal court before Judge… [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 3:12 pm
On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v. [read post]
19 Aug 2024, 11:20 am
In Perot v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 4:50 am
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359, 1378 (11th Cir.2005); Carter v. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 4:00 am
Godard v. [read post]
8 Feb 2023, 12:13 pm
Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 5:58 pm
The case of ABC v. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 3:18 am
Carter III in connection with their purchase of a penthouse residential condominium unit. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 5:04 pm
Carter, 252 U. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 5:38 am
Carter. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 4:35 pm
LEXIS 8786 [7th Dist.]; Carter v. [read post]
28 Jan 2009, 1:17 am
In Nixon v. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 10:22 am
Carter v. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 8:58 am
Carter, the court spoke regarding the article or articles expressive of the law in the Insurance Code. [read post]
19 Dec 2010, 4:24 am
Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113 (1981); People v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 5:10 pm
Unterberg v Jimmy Carter and Simon & Schuster - Class Action Complaint re: Palestine: Peace not Apartheid[By: David Schoen |In: Art & Entertainment]20. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm
Carter (1972), in which the Court explained that for purposes of such ballot integrity and practical functioning, states can exclude from their ballots “frivolous” candidacies. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 2:02 pm
Carter (1972), in which the Court explained that for purposes of such ballot integrity and practical functioning, states can exclude from their ballots “frivolous” candidacies. [read post]