Search for: "State v. Otto" Results 1 - 20 of 173
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jul 2023, 12:11 pm by Kenneth J. Allen
For example, a new trial was recently ordered in the case of Kroft v. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 5:50 am by Eugene Volokh
Otto that it was not misconduct connected with the employee's work to violate a company rule forbidding all contact between current employees and ex-employees. [read post]
30 May 2023, 4:35 pm by admin
The Memorandum, and Justice Powell’s subsequent majority opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. [read post]
18 Feb 2023, 11:20 am by Gene Takagi
IRS (Complaint) challenges the right of the IRS to collect donor information on Schedule B of the Form 990, asserting both the IRS’s failure to keep such information confidential and the Constitutional issues (chilling of association and assembly rights) – a completely expected outcome of the Supreme Court decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 3:33 am by SHG
Governor of New Jersey (3d Cir. 2014); Otto v. [read post]
30 Sep 2022, 11:33 pm by INFORRM
To depict the contradiction, the article turns to Choudhury v. the United Kingdom, Gay News Ltd. v. the United Kingdom, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 10:50 am by Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle)
Wikipedia educates us that From the accession of Otto I in 962 until the twelfth century, the Empire was the most powerful monarchy in Europe. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 2:17 am by Alyson Poole (AU)
The answer has recently been summarised in Viceroy Cayman Limited v Anthony Otto Syrowatka [2021] ATMO 159 (Viceroy v Syrowatka), stating “[i]t is well established that ownership of a trade mark is established either by authorship and prior use, or by the combination of authorship, the filing of the application and an intention to use or authorise use”. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 2:17 am by Alyson Poole (AU)
The answer has recently been summarised in Viceroy Cayman Limited v Anthony Otto Syrowatka [2021] ATMO 159 (Viceroy v Syrowatka), stating “[i]t is well established that ownership of a trade mark is established either by authorship and prior use, or by the combination of authorship, the filing of the application and an intention to use or authorise use”. [read post]