Search for: "United States v. Bell" Results 61 - 80 of 1,466
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Aug 2018, 7:32 am by Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
The word mark “WINNING ISN’T NORMAL” has also been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office with Registration No. 4630749 for printed matter. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 4:37 pm by Daniel G.C. Glover
Introduction In a case with several important echoes to Canadian appellate law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has revived the actor’s Hayden Christensen’s “idea theft” lawsuit against the USA Network this week in the Forest Park Pictures v. [read post]
1 Sep 2008, 8:47 am by stu@crimapp.com
In Bell v Kelly, the Court has agreed to examine some part of this quandary. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 1:36 pm by site admin
Belle, Declaratory Relief After MedImmune, 14 Lewis & Clark Law Review 491 (2010) In MedImmune, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2022, 9:14 pm by Dan Flynn
The federal Western District Court for Texas calls the United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2022, 3:34 pm
Attorney’s Fees in a Copyright Action« Win One for the Gipper »  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CV-1157 Just as famous as some great upsets in sports history are the motivational speeches that inspired them. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 1:37 pm
As was recently reported on this blog, this past May the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Ashcroft v. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 1:23 pm by WIMS
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 3:35 pm by Barry Barnett
Has the United States Supreme Court backed away from its landmark toughening of the test for pleading a claim in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
20 May 2020, 9:04 pm by Dan Flynn
After almost three weeks with almost no activity, the criminal case involving the United States v. [read post]
4 Nov 2008, 2:47 pm
Today, the North Carolina Court of Appeals said that it did not have the authority to adopt the "new" standard for consideration of a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion articulated last year by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]