Search for: "FLOWERS V US" Results 1 - 20 of 765
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Mar 2019, 4:03 pm by Thaddeus Hoffmeister
  The prosecutor in Flowers repeatedly and routinely used peremptory challenges to strike potential African American jurors. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 7:29 am by Steve Erickson
Today, SCOTUS handed down the decision in Flowers v. [read post]
4 May 2015, 11:03 am by Eric Goldman
Bloom That represented that using new burlap costs $0.50—$0.65 per bouquet (and Farmgirl got its recycled bags for free), while alternatives would cost Bloom That $5 per bouquet. * burlap is eco-friendly. * using burlap to wrap flowers was covered by U.S. [read post]
28 May 2013, 1:45 am
The IPKat does some fieldresearch into flowers ...Connoisseurs of long judgments will know that Interflora Inc and Interflora British Unit v Marks and Spencer Plc and Flowers Direct Online Limited [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch) was decided last Monday, 21 May 2013, in the Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, England and Wales, by (who else?) [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 8:55 am
From lawyer, journalist and occasional pen-friend of the IPKat Jeff John Roberts comes the exciting news of something almost as unusual as an admission from the US Patent and Trademark Office that its patent system is out of step with the rest of the world -- a truly rare US moral rights case,Chapman Kelley v Chicago Park District (here). [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 10:09 am by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch We all love flowers, but what is their real purpose, their “use. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 12:07 pm by Dennis Crouch
The flowers were incorporated into candle holders and other small useful objects. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 12:07 pm
The flowers were incorporated into candle holders and other small useful objects. [read post]
4 Nov 2018, 3:10 pm by Thaddeus Hoffmeister
The Supreme Court has granted cert in Flowers v. [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 5:51 am by Elizabeth Lowman
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Flowers v. [read post]