Search for: "Borden v. Borden" Results 21 - 40 of 295
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Oct 2022, 4:28 pm
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548, 551 (7th Cir.), as amended (July 2, 2001))). [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 10:18 am
"(See, also, Jankowski v Borden's Condensed Milk Co., 176 AD 453 [2d Dept 1917] [Driver's statement that it was his fault held not admissible]; and Raczes v Home, 68 AD3d 1521, 1522-1523 [3d Dept 2009] [Maintenance worker's statement: "This is the third time that I fixed this railing and I'm getting sick of it", not competent to establish notice on the part of employer]). [read post]
6 Dec 2021, 5:59 pm by James Romoser
Davis (which found Section 924(c)’s “residual clause” unconstitutional) and earlier this year in Borden v. [read post]
8 Oct 2021, 4:01 am by Saloni Khanderia
In doing so, the court placed emphasis on the position under English law as emphasized in Payton v Snelling,[2] Lampard; Reckitt & Colman v Borden;[3] and Pasquali Cigarette Co Ltd v Diaconicolas & Capsopolus.[4] The first and foremost factor, as the court stressed, would be to identify the features in the plaintiff’s product that are distinctive to him or her. [read post]