Search for: "People v Flowers" Results 141 - 160 of 348
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Dec 2022, 1:59 am by Matrix Law
In the matter of an application by James Hugh Allister and others for Judicial Review  (Northern Ireland), In the matter of an application by Clifford Peoples for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland), heard 30th November – 1st December 2022 R (on the application of Day) v Shropshire Council, heard 7th December 2022. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 4:59 am
Springtime is the time for flowers, which makes it totally appropriate that the first little buds should begin to appear in Case C-323/09 Interflora Inc and Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc and Flowers Direct Online Limited, a reference to the Court of the European Union (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. [read post]
24 Dec 2021, 1:31 pm by Andrew Hamm
These and other petitions of the week are below: Flowers v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 5:00 am by IP Dragon
 It is well known that Louis Vuitton did not only trademark the name Louis Vuitton, and the monogram LV but also the Monogram Canvas, and each of its constituting parts: the fourpointed stars, four-pointed stars inset in curved diamonds (flower quatrefoil diamond), and four-pointed flowers inset (flower quatrefoil). [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 3:58 am by Edith Roberts
At the Brennan Center, Andrew Cohen writes that the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Flowers v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 6:38 pm by David Kopel
Rather, the claim is that the presence of makes ordinary people more aggressive, anti-social and violent. [read post]
15 Nov 2009, 9:54 pm
OH WAIT….MY MISTAKE….READ ON] From chocolate to cereal, football to flowers--and they all have logos. [read post]
23 Jun 2021, 9:30 am by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.
  The California Supreme Court held the following: “Because application of [due care] is inherently situational, the amount of care deemed reasonable in any particular case will vary, while at the same time the standard of conduct itself remains constant, i.e., due care commensurate with the risk posed by the conduct taking into consideration all relevant circumstances (Flowers v. [read post]