Search for: "Long v. Long"
Results 121 - 140
of 73,316
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 May 2024, 9:05 pm
They have long been a mainstay in criminal prosecutions for classic organized crime and drug cartel matters. [read post]
2 May 2024, 6:25 pm
See page 107 of FDA’s 1st Quarter FY2024 MDUVA V Report (here). [read post]
2 May 2024, 2:27 pm
Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
2 May 2024, 1:22 pm
In SIA v. [read post]
2 May 2024, 11:56 am
Brown v. [read post]
2 May 2024, 10:39 am
See also Boim v. [read post]
2 May 2024, 9:35 am
The court relied on In re Estate of Jurgens, 31 N.W.2d 633 (Iowa 1948) and Noe v. [read post]
2 May 2024, 7:50 am
As this timeline shows, the Supreme Court’s engagement with this issue has been long and complex. 1944. [read post]
2 May 2024, 6:55 am
Inc. v. [read post]
2 May 2024, 6:54 am
Bierly v. [read post]
2 May 2024, 6:30 am
Connecticut and Stanley v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 9:59 pm
In Murphy v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 9:01 pm
Debates about the permissibility of protests on college campuses today seem fixated on the notion of violence. [read post]
1 May 2024, 1:18 pm
False Claims Act cases based on kickbacks to healthcare providers have long been a priority for the U.S. [read post]
1 May 2024, 9:00 am
Despite its length, the Guidance conspicuously omits any reference to last fall’s landmark decision in FTC v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 6:30 am
” The Court’s decision in Roe v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 5:55 am
In Hood v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 4:12 am
Inc. v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 3:31 am
ReputationThe Court began by noting that although market share was a relevant factor, there was no requirement for a mark to be known by a specific percentage of the relevant public, nor for its reputation to cover all the territory concerned, so long as that reputation exists in a substantial part of that territory (QUARTODIMIGLIO QM, T-76/13 EU:T:2015:94).Furthermore, in order to establish whether a mark has a reputation, an overall assessment must be carried out of the evidence… [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 8:01 pm
In Kadel v. [read post]