Search for: "United States v. Classic"
Results 1741 - 1756
of 1,756
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2007, 11:09 am
United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 12:48 am
United States, 17 F.3d 890, 901 (6th Cir. 1994); Albrecht v. [read post]
17 Jan 2007, 7:54 pm
Welch's excellent summaries of United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decisions, but in this case, I disagree. [read post]
16 Jan 2007, 2:42 pm
As the United States does here. [read post]
12 Jan 2007, 3:52 pm
United States v. [read post]
8 Jan 2007, 4:40 pm
Sea Star Line, LLC, 06-606 QP: "Whether the Carmack Amendment applies to the inland leg of a multimodal shipment to a place in the United States from a place in a territory of the United States even if the inland carrier does not issue a separate bill of lading for the inland leg. [read post]
3 Jan 2007, 3:59 pm
In Stone v. [read post]
22 Dec 2006, 11:31 am
Mark Graber, More Advice from Classical Greece (Sept. 25, 2006)18. [read post]
7 Dec 2006, 4:09 am
Yesterday's Opinion by Justice Souter for the United States Supreme Court in the case of Lopez v. [read post]
27 Nov 2006, 5:58 am
BNA's United States Law Week reported in Vol. 75, No. 19 (Nov. 21, 2006) on the case Sims v. [read post]
9 Nov 2006, 5:17 pm
It shows how important it is that the United States Supreme Court start setting some categorical rules. [read post]
26 Oct 2006, 1:44 pm
" I suppose the classic case in the genre is United States v. [read post]
25 Oct 2006, 8:36 am
United States v. [read post]
22 Oct 2006, 2:37 am
As for a system of import licenses, such a system is in principle contrary to Article 28 EC, which precludes the application in intra-Community trade of national provisions which require, even as a pure formality, import licences or any other similar procedure (Case 124/81 Commission v United Kingdom, paragraph 9, and Case C‑304/88 Commission v Belgium, paragraph 9; see also Case C‑212/03 Commission v France, paragraph 16, and Case E-1/94 Restamark,… [read post]
28 Aug 2006, 10:28 am
July 12, 2006):A claim determination by a non-bankruptcy court in the United States would seemingly be conclusive as to the issues determined, for bankruptcy purposes, based on res judicata or collateral estoppel grounds. [read post]
17 Feb 2006, 9:40 am
The discussion in that section of Katzenbach v. [read post]
