Search for: "Irvin v. State" Results 181 - 200 of 602
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Sep 2007, 10:26 am
Then, after a mounting fire storm of critical commentary, the Chancellor Michael V. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 8:55 am by Ted Folkman
The blog has a very narrow but very timely focus: underenforcement and undercollection of civil, criminal, and regulatory fines in the United States. [read post]
12 Aug 2009, 5:03 am
     In the relatively recent California state court decision of Walsh v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:52 am by INFORRM
Gama Endustri Tesisleri Imalat Montaj AS v Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment [2005] IEHC 119 (22 April 2005) (Kelly J), Cogley v Radio Telifís Eireann [2005] 4 IR 79, [2005] IEHC 180 (8 June 2005) (Clarke J) and Murray v Newsgroup Newspapers [2010] IEHC 248 (Irvine J) are all to similar effect. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 5:21 pm by James Yang
Sept. 10, 2014), the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent claim as being indefinite under a new standard set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Biosig v. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 3:00 am by John Day
State, 292 S.W.2d 738, 742 (Tenn. 1956), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 9:14 am by James Yang
As an Irvine Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 9:14 am by James Yang
As an Irvine Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities. [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 2:27 pm
The leading case on false endorsement is Irvine v Talksport [2002] FSR 60, in which Eddie Irvine successfully argued passing off when Talksport used his image for an advertising campaign. [read post]
10 Nov 2007, 4:21 pm
I wonder whether the principles set out in Irvine v Talk Sport (those bold children at Talk Sport using an image of Eddie Irvine for sales purposes without permission), which established the notion that an action for ‘passing off’ is not limited to where both parties are in the same field of activity or where there is actual potential for financial loss. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 7:18 am
Florida and Graham v. [read post]
27 May 2014, 4:04 am by David DePaolo
"As a consequence, the WCAB erred in this case when it ordered an in camera review of the University's allegedly privileged documents by a special master for the purpose of assessing the merits of that privilege claim," the court concluded.The WCAB's order was annulled.The case is Regents of the University of California v. [read post]