Search for: "EDDY v. STATE et al." Results 1 - 20 of 35
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Nov 2012, 4:48 pm by Victoria VanBuren
Eddie Lee Howard, et al, 568 U.S. ___ (Nov. 26, 2012), a dispute arose between Nitro-Lift Technologies (“Nitro-Lift”) and two of its former employees, Eddie Lee Howard and Shane D. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 3:49 am by Ben
 As it currently stands, the 2nd Circuit will be reviewing the New York judge's decision with the California case awaiting a result, too.More here http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/1972-and-all-that-but-does-turtles-win.html and here http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/turtles-probe-murky-soup-of-pre-1972-us.html and here Flo & Eddie, Inc., v Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al    UNITED STATES… [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 5:38 am by Ben
Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al in the United States District Court, Central District of California [read post]
24 Jun 2020, 4:15 am by C. Dale Quisenberry
Jerry Seinfeld et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 18-cv-01196. [read post]
20 Mar 2023, 12:30 pm by Avery Schmitz
Department of State; and Shaikh Abdullah bin Rashid Al Khalifa, ambassador of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the United States. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 5:30 am
Eddie Lee Howard et. al., decided November 26, 2012, which deals with two employees desperately attempting to circumvent that pesky arbitration clause in their covenant not to compete agreement with the employer. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 3:55 am by Ben
Those pesky TurtlesIt seems SiriusXM has decided to rely on the 1940 case of  RCA v Whiteman et al to persuade  U.S. [read post]
23 May 2011, 2:20 am by Kelly
(TTABlog) TTAB affirms mere descriptiveness refusal of JEWELRYSUPPLY.COM: No tacking and not enough 2(f): In re Jewelry Supply Inc (TTABlog) TTAB affirms refusal of the “Eddie Bauer Guarantee” for failure to function as a service mark: In re Eddie Bauer Licensing Services LLC (TTABlog) TTAB dismisses fraud-based opposition for failure to prove intent to deceive: Daniel Ryan Way and CMDW, Inc. v. [read post]