Search for: "United States v. Parisi" Results 1 - 20 of 21
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2018, 5:40 am by Terry Hart
” Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v Wall-street.com, Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae — A well-written brief from the U.S. [read post]
14 May 2015, 12:52 am by Sean Patrick Donlan
Garske (United States)III.C        Views of Law and the Cities·         The Interaction between Non-Judicial Mechanisms of Conflict Resolution and the State: the Case Study of Maputo, Concetta Tina Lorizzo, University of Cape Town (South Africa)·         Plurality and the City, Julian Sidoli del Ceno, Birmingham City University (United… [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 7:35 am
Taken by itself and out of context, the question "Is it acceptable that the European Union abandons its powers in favour of the Member States? [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 8:01 am by Schachtman
United States, 320 U.S. 1, 60–61 (1943) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting in part) (‘‘it is an old observation that the training of Anglo–American judges ill fits them to discharge the duties cast upon them by patent legislation’’); Parke–Davis & Co. v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 7:46 pm by Kirk Jenkins
In state and Federal courts throughout the country, the defense and plaintiffs’ bars are debating the application of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
21 May 2012, 3:04 am by New Books Script
K 487 E3 P765 2011 Production of legal rules / edited by Francesco Parisi. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 3:59 am
Two rulings by state courts illustrate this point, Croman v City University of New York, 277 AD2d 185, and Parisi v NYC Housing Authority, Appellate Division, First Department, 269 AD2d 210. [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 2:29 am by gmlevine
Rather, the loser’s recourse is to commence a de novo law suit under the national law of its jurisdiction which, in the case of the United States would be a claim under the Lanham Act. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 2:24 am by gmlevine
Rather, the loser’s recourse is to commence a de novo law suit under the national law of its jurisdiction, which in the case of the United States would be a claim under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, [specifically, §1125(d) of the Lanham Act]. [read post]