Search for: "Long v. First Union Corp. of Virginia" Results 41 - 60 of 81
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jul 2019, 8:16 am by Ingrid Wuerth
A 1781 Pennsylvania state court case against the state of Virginia, Nathan v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 1:33 pm by Cristina Tilley
The question before the Court in Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:45 pm by admin
In Union Pacific Railroad Company v. 174 Acres of Land,7 the court noted that the railroad company could bring a diversity action against an owner so long as the railroad is properly authorized to condemn property within the State.Discovery Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 governs discovery in federal condemnation actions, as well as other federal matters. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 12:12 pm
ECJ clarifies rules relating to notice: K-Swiss Inc v OHIM (Class 46) EU Competitiveness Council resolution against counterfeiting and piracy (Class 46) EU states back three-point anti-piracy plan (Managing Intellectual Property) Fuel cells and wind power lead European patent filings for clean energy technology (Green Patent Blog) More non-minor geographical indicator (GI) amendments published (Class 46) No sign of any Community patent progress, despite Verheugen's optimism (IAM) The… [read post]
19 May 2015, 8:45 am
” The Lanham Act and First Amendment may be in tension at times, but they are not in conflict so long as the Act hews faithfully to the purposes for which it was enacted. [read post]
12 Aug 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Herrera Velutini and Rossini allegedly paid more than $300,000 to consultants who supported Vázquez Garced’s campaign. [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 7:23 am by Ronald Collins
’” In terms of the long view of Supreme Court history, wasn’t the progressive spirit of the Warren Court – exemplified in decisions such as Brown v. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:30 pm by admin
  These were all first posted, in abbreviated form, on http://twitter.com/smtaber. [read post]
9 Oct 2006, 5:12 pm
The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by various acts, including: Supervisor Virginia Rojas' coercively interrogating employees, creating the impression of surveillance, and threatening job loss in mid to late August; Rojas' ban on talking about the Union during "work hours" made on numerous occasions; and Rojas telling employees that they were liars and backstabbers after the… [read post]