Search for: "State v. Humbles" Results 141 - 160 of 569
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Oct 2011, 9:50 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Which in our humble opinion has a good shot of a grant, since the Ninth Circuit's opinion directly conflicts with both Ehrlich and the Texas Supreme Court's opinion in City of Flower Mound v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 7:26 am by Eduardo Ustaran
Governments, business pioneers and even humble citizens are all expected to act responsibly and proportionally. [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 5:57 pm
The California Supreme Court — acting only 16 days after the nation's highest court humbled it with Jan. 22's Cunningham v. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 11:51 am
In an already tapered-down scenario, it is humbly stated that the SC through its recent judgment in Suman Kapur v. [read post]
12 Jul 2014, 12:21 pm by Jani
Quoting Silverman v CBS, Justice Posner stated that "[t]he copyrights on the derivative works, corresponding to the copyrights on the ten last Sherlock Holmes stories, were not extended by virtue of the incremental additions of originality in the derivative works". [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 8:15 am by Larry
The resulting case is Andritz Sundwig GmbH v. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 10:56 am
" In United States v. [read post]
12 Oct 2015, 12:11 pm
Square-bashing baker makes rival eat humble pieFrom Katfriend and occasional contributor Emma Perot comes a fascinating look beneath the crust of a pie-based dispute over the use of the word "Square". [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 11:57 am
It was standing room only in the courtroom of  US district court judge(and former REGJB ASA and then state court judge) Bob Scola Tuesday morning as AUSA Elizabeth Young rose and addressed the jurors in USA v. [read post]
16 Sep 2018, 8:29 am
After some research in the matter, we believe a tie is not a loss, and Memon, survives another week.See, Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 E.R.1006; Bushel's case;  and Entick v Carrington [1765] 19 Howell's State Trials 1030. [read post]
22 Jun 2014, 5:34 am by Jani
Under common law a mark is protectable through its use, or as was stated by Justice Pitney in United Drug Co v Theodore Rectans Co: "...the right to a particular mark grows out of its use, not its mere adoption; its function is simply to designate the goods as the product of a particular trader and to protect his good will against the sale of another's product as his". [read post]