Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Tea Rose-Rectanus doctrine or remote, good-faith user doctrine [1] is a common law rule of United States trademark law that determines the geographic scope of rights. The doctrine allows a junior user of a mark that is geographically remote from the senior user of the mark to establish priority over a senior user's claim to the mark in the junior user's area. [2]
Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith: Little Rock, AR: 1958 2002–present 2017–2024 — G.W. Bush: 56 Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender: Saint Louis, MO: 1963 2004–present — — G.W. Bush: 57 Circuit Judge Duane Benton: Kansas City, MO: 1950 2004–present — — G.W. Bush: 58 Circuit Judge Bobby Shepherd: El Dorado, AR: 1951 2006–present ...
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which held that representative evidence could be used to support the claims of the class. [1] The case arose as a class action lawsuit against Tyson ...
The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (in case citations, W.D. Ark.) is a federal court in the Eighth Circuit (except for patent claims and claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act, which are appealed to the Federal Circuit).
In its opinion issued on July 14, 2006, the Eighth Circuit held: the amendment rationally related to legitimate state interests, and therefore did not violate the Equal Protection Clause; the amendment could not be considered a bill of attainder; the amendment did not violate homosexuals' First Amendment right to associate; and the amendment ...
The Florida circuit courts are state courts and trial courts [1] of original jurisdiction for most controversies. In Florida, the circuit courts are one of four types of courts created by the Florida Constitution (the other three being the Florida Supreme Court , Florida district courts of appeal , and Florida county courts ).
Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that state and federal courts cannot, on a motion to vacate or to modify an arbitration award, expand the limited scope of judicial review specified in 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11, including terms that were agreed upon by the parties.
On January 31, 2014, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny Rodriguez's motion to suppress the evidence. [21] The Eighth Circuit held that a seven- to eight-minute detention was de minimis and reasonable in order to ensure officer safety. [22]