Search for: "Strauss v. State"
Results 201 - 220
of 390
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2010, 3:55 pm
Schwarzenegger v. [read post]
21 Jun 2014, 2:31 pm
In United States v. [read post]
7 Jul 2016, 8:44 am
Ky. 2008) (section 15 affidavit of incontestability properly filed where counterclaim had not yet been filed); Levi Strauss & Co. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2017, 4:35 am
United States. [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 6:43 am
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 105 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 6:04 am
NYT Yahoo v. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 5:13 am
In Strauss v. [read post]
9 Sep 2009, 11:21 am
The office of the state public defender has reportedly committed an additional $25,000. [read post]
23 Apr 2017, 1:18 pm
Pulka v. [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 10:01 am
Nathaniel Sobel and Julia Solomon-Strauss discussed the latest news in Trump v. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 9:01 pm
”Raven should be considered alongside the 2009 ruling (almost two decades later) in Strauss v. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 1:36 am
MOZIE section 2(d) opposition but nixes fraud claim (TTABlog) US Trade Marks & Domain Names – Lawsuits and strategic steps Levi Strauss – Levi Strauss’s trademark and domain name claims may block unauthorized resales: Levi Strauss v. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 6:03 am
Arguing for state and local officials in Arizona v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 8:39 am
In Levi Strauss & Co. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 8:22 am
(That case, Strauss v. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 8:56 pm
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 105 S.W.3d 244, 250 (Tex. [read post]
3 Feb 2018, 5:10 am
Julia Solomon-Strauss and Stephen Szrom discussed the latest developments in United States v. al-Nashiri. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 7:00 am
Michael Strauss, Stephen Hozie and Robert Bernstein, Civil Action No. 09-CV-4150 (RB) (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 7:30 am
Or consider another example: in United States v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 6:32 pm
The majority there explained that "Proposition 8 does not abrogate any of these state constitutional rights, but instead carves out a narrow exception applicable only to access to the designation of the term 'marriage,' but not to any other of 'the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage.'" See Strauss v. [read post]
