Search for: "State v. Burnett" Results 81 - 100 of 217
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Oct 2015, 2:37 pm
In Case C-228/03 Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy, the CJEU stated that use that does not create an impression of commercial connection or take unfair advantage of the earlier mark’s distinctive character or repute will be considered honest practice. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 10:25 am
Over the next few months, I will be doing a number of speaking engagements about my recently published book The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 8:53 am by Wystan Ackerman
Cutting Edge Developments in Class Action Law: Scott Burnett Smith presented on this topic. [read post]
14 Dec 2014, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
Burnett in its December 11, 2014 decision in Matter of Noella Lum B. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2014, 10:41 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 10:42 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
2 Sep 2014, 10:45 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 10:52 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 10:46 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
30 Aug 2014, 10:42 pm
In her affidavit of services the guardian ad litem stated that she spent 7.2 hours on the matter, representing a charge of $2,828.00 for services rendered. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 10:56 pm
Burnette, 698 F.2d 1038, 1049 (9th Cir.1983); United States v. [read post]