Search for: "US Term Limits, Inc. v. Hill" Results 61 - 80 of 353
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Sep 2015, 10:42 am by Brett Trout
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution secures to authors, for a limited time, the exclusive right to their writings. [read post]
3 Aug 2022, 4:37 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action in the original complaint because he failed to allege that “but for” defendant’s negligent conduct, he would have prevailed in the underlying action (Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 272 [1st Dept 2004]; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]). [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 12:00 am
B-Roc Reps., Inc (Chicago Intellectual Property Law Blog) TTAB dismisses 2(d) opposition, finding BELL HILL for wine and BELL’S for beer too dissimilar: Bell's Brewery, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 6:28 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  That trend is one we hope and expect will continue, due in part to the effect of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2008, 12:40 pm
The Act does not define the term `distribute.' Capitol Hill Records, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 8:34 am by Ronald Collins
IMS Health Inc. (2011) (the commercial expression case) and the plurality opinion in United States v. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 4:13 am by Edith Roberts
” We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 1:27 pm
[Page 1:] The plaintiffs, Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP, Great Hill Investors LLC, Fremont Holdco, Inc., and Bluesnap, Inc. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 4:52 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action in the original complaint because he failed to allege that “but for” defendant’s negligent conduct, he would have prevailed in the underlying action (Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 272 [1st Dept 2004]; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]). [read post]