Search for: "Burrows v. State of La*" Results 81 - 100 of 194
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Apr 2019, 7:45 am
   In Janssen v Teva (2009) the Federal Circuit stated that mere plausibility does not suffice to meet this requirement, if it did then patents could be obtained for little more than “respectable guesses”. [read post]
24 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 17 October 2018 (Underhill V-P, Sharp LJ and Sir Rupert Jackson). [read post]
26 Oct 2018, 3:47 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Accordingly, the complaint failed to state a cause of action for violations of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Ehrenkranz v 58 MHR, LLC, 159 AD3d 872, 872; Shaffer v Gilberg, 125 AD3d 632, 636; Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759). [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 4:30 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity (see CPLR 3016[b]; Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US], 134 AD3d 610, 615; Armstrong v Blank Rome LLP, 126 AD3d 427; Putnam County Temple & Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 9:48 am by Toam Rubinstein and Stacy K. Marcus
” Compendium (Third) § 101.1(A); Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 9:48 am by Toam Rubinstein and Stacy K. Marcus
” Compendium (Third) § 101.1(A); Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 4:55 pm by INFORRM
Rule in Clibbery v Allan In a sense, the case of Clibbery v Allan [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [200] Fam 261, [2002] 2 WLR 1511, [2002] 1 FLR 565 confirms my point; and it represents the common – (judge-made) – law, which cannot be overturned by a rule-maker. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm by ligitsec
” Two years later, as the memoirs were nearing completion, petitioners negotiated a prepublication licensing agreement with Time, a weekly news magazine. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 2:21 am
This Kat was so reminded in revisiting the 2013 decision of the United States Supreme Court, Already LLC dba Yums v. [read post]