Search for: "Cola v. State"
Results 161 - 180
of 626
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Aug 2017, 5:56 am
The Paris Criminal Court of Appeal awarded a total amount of 13 million euros and 12 months’ imprisonment in the case of D.M. v APP, Microsoft, Sacem and others, available in French language here.Monday Miscellany and Sunday SurprisesPREVIOUSLY ON NEVER TOO LATENever Too Late 158 [week ending Sunday 30 July] The right of communication to the public ... in a chart I From Coca-Cola Zero to Coca-Cola Zero Sugar: big deal or no deal? [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 9:09 am
In 1881, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Egbert v. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 8:15 am
Co v. [read post]
10 Aug 2017, 3:41 pm
From Coca-Cola Zero to Coca-Cola Zero Sugar: big deal or no deal? [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 9:16 pm
The Coca-Cola brand is a trademark. [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 9:16 pm
The Coca-Cola brand is a trademark. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 7:24 am
The tax, which is 24 times the state excise tax rate on beer, has received mixed reviews among constituents. [read post]
27 Jul 2017, 12:45 pm
” That was enough to show standing, as required by Spokeo v. [read post]
27 Jul 2017, 7:11 am
In a previous position, she filed an amicus brief for the Coca-Cola Company and Archer Daniels Midland Company in support of the corporate respondents in Kiobel v. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 3:39 pm
He later admitted that he had beer in a Coca Cola cup. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 3:30 am
There’s Bibby v. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 9:19 am
Bibby v. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 10:08 am
In fact, in the cross-motions for summary judgment, the claimants stated that the use of a trade mark as a verb, i.e. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 1:01 pm
Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. ___ (2014); Buckman Co. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 1:01 pm
Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. ___ (2014); Buckman Co. v. [read post]
18 May 2017, 9:47 am
“Nope,” said the Ninth Circuit in the recent case of Elliott v. [read post]
18 May 2017, 9:47 am
“Nope,” said the Ninth Circuit in the recent case of Elliott v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 9:19 pm
One would repeal the so-called “Chevron” doctrine, so named for a 1984 Supreme Court case of Chevron USA v. [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 7:08 am
Although Coca-Cola argued that his state-law claims were preempted by LMRA Section 301 because they could not be resolved without analyzing the CBAs, it conceded that neither CBA contained any term relating to the safeguarding of personal information so any independent agreement on that topic would not conflict with the terms of the bargaining agreements. [read post]
4 Apr 2017, 12:16 pm
Pepsi Cola Company, 2000 WL 34401845 (N.J. [read post]
