Search for: "Sweet v. State" Results 41 - 60 of 794
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jan 2013, 2:06 pm by Bexis
  We already did that in connection with the original decision in Conte v. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 10:00 am by Douglas P. Matthews
In Expeditors and Production Service Company, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 8:29 pm
Sweet of the Southern District of New York ruled against the defendants' motions to dismiss in Association for Molecular Pathology v. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 3:48 pm
But it's interesting that the court did not discuss the case law stating that a reduction in compensatory damages necessarily requires a reduction of the punitive damages award, or at least a new trial on punitive damages. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 1:40 pm
             And while you ponder sugar plums, mulled cider, and crackling fires, we’ll update you on a recent federal decision that refused to recognize an expansion of state products liability law – Baird v. [read post]
4 Jul 2008, 9:54 am
strikes and you're out - well, we told you so" campaign (see next) and the anti-child porn brigade, it has to be said that the ECD immunities of Art 13-15 - including the requirement that the state not ask ISPs or hosts to proactively monitor or filter in Art 15 - look increasingly like dead ducks.Things look to be going the same way in the US as well, with both the CDA s 230c immunity under fire in the US Tiffany litigation, and DMCA immunity attacked in the ongoing Viacom… [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 1:06 pm by Cleve Clinton & Jamie Ribman
For Jayda’s lawsuit, check out Horizon Group Management, LLC v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 2:32 am by John L. Welch
Cloverhill Pastry-Vend, LLC v. 10 Star Enterprises, Inc., Opposition No. 91181131 (December 16, 2011) [not precedential]Section 2(d): Not much to see here. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 8:03 am by Michael Froomkin
But I have to say that there is some bitter wrapped up in the sweet. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 6:22 am
The court's press release states that there was no likelihood of confusion between both parties trade marks. [read post]
9 Dec 2018, 11:30 pm by Nick Esterbauer
The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Moore v Sweet provided meaningful clarification on the Canadian law of unjust enrichment and, in particular, the juristic reason analysis. [read post]