Search for: "CHARM v. STATE"
Results 141 - 160
of 408
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Aug 2022, 9:10 am
For example, a clear statement is needed before a statute is read to interfere with a state's internal governance (Gregory v. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 4:56 am
” In just under two weeks, the Court will hear oral arguments in Evenwel v. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 4:37 am
" (emphasis added) And in United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 1:31 pm
Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 5:30 am
., Kentucky Bar Assoc. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2008, 11:13 am
In United States v. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 4:30 am
At the end of 2013 we were greeted by a jolly, straightforward application of TwIqbal in Witt v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 4:30 am
Our tasty tater tot of a case for today’s consumption is Lederman v. [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 7:21 pm
(v) Other showings that are relevant to the issues identified in paragraphs (i) to (iv) of this subdivision. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 7:22 am
Ninth Circuit Upholds Issuance of Warrant Based on E-mail Recipient List — United States v. [read post]
10 Mar 2024, 8:43 am
Reminder of IPKat event ‘(Re-)discovering the copyright basics – Originality after THJ v Sheridan’ (14 March)The IPKat is thrilled to announce that, in the evening of 14 March 2024, a stellar panel has been gathered to discuss the Court of Appeal of England and Wales judgment in THJ v Sheridan [2023] EWCA Civ 1354 regarding copyright originality in certain graphic user interfaces (GUIs). [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 4:00 am
Condor and Filvern v. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 9:50 am
District Court for the District of Columbia referenced my most-noted formulation of this principle in a foreign-cubed piracy case, United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 1:09 pm
State Atty’s office. [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 2:19 pm
" This was, in sum, an interesting R and J, but an unpleasant and distasteful rendering, bereft of its charm and of most of the poetry. [read post]
8 Aug 2010, 11:16 am
In Broadcast Music, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 3:00 am
Sometimes elegance is refusal.The average consumer and the nature of the purchasing actAs per Sabel BV v Puma AG, the average consumer normally perceives a trade mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse the various details. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 3:23 pm
Tire Corp. v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 2:40 am
Co. v Liebman, Adolf & Charme, 257 AD2d 424; VDR Realty Corp. v Mintz, 167 AD2d 986; Wolstencroft v Sassower, 124 AD2d at 582; see also DePinto v Rosenthal & Curry, 237 AD2d 482, 482)". [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 6:53 am
See, for instance, Hamilton's famous argument in Rutgers v. [read post]
