Search for: "State v. Champagne"
Results 81 - 100
of 181
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2015, 12:47 pm
The first case, State v. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 1:19 pm
In a case called Lexmark v. [read post]
12 May 2015, 4:45 am
When Jim Tyre sent me the decision in United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 8:51 pm
See Lawrence v. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 5:50 am
State v. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 11:28 am
Social scientists break out the champagne when they get a p that low. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 7:50 am
That means that §602(a)(1) allows the importation into the United States of a copy of a protected work purchased abroad. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 9:01 pm
And in Johnson v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 1:29 pm
Mumm & Cie v. [read post]
20 Sep 2014, 11:07 am
Parker v. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 8:13 pm
In Carter v. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 8:48 am
It’s not time to break out the champagne in Cincinnati, however, as the same day a unanimous court also reversed the Sixth Circuit in United States v. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 4:31 pm
In form 1001E it kept the pre-checked box at 6-1 that states that all European Patent Convention (EPC) contract states are designated. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 6:43 am
They’re also obviously at risk of simply describing, in a laudatory manner, characteristics of the goods or services in question.CJEU Cases C-398/08 P Audi AG v OHIM (VORSPRUNG DURCH TECHNIK) and C-311/11 P Smart Technologies ULC v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH), already blogged by Jeremy hereand here, set out the position in Europe. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 8:00 am
The issues are similar to those in Ritz Hotel Ltd v. [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 7:33 pm
In United States ex rel Stone v. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 4:52 am
Trout Point Lodge, Ltd. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2013, 10:37 pm
The case is Marin Asenov v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 4:23 pm
In a greatly anticipated and deeply divided opinion, the High Court ruled that lawfully married same-sex couples are entitled to the equal protection of the laws pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, and thus, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) must fall (United States v Windsor, June 26, 2013, Kennedy, A). [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 4:23 pm
In a greatly anticipated and deeply divided opinion, the High Court ruled that lawfully married same-sex couples are entitled to the equal protection of the laws pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, and thus, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) must fall (United States v Windsor, June 26, 2013, Kennedy, A). [read post]
