Search for: "Lee v. Chang, et al" Results 61 - 80 of 206
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Mar 2017, 4:36 am by Michael Lowe
  Read the letter sent to then Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed by Mike Lee and Al Franken, among others, in the post. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 12:04 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  The most striking example of apparently mistaken incontestability comes from B&B v. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 5:03 pm by Bill Marler
On August 15, 2016, the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) identified raw scallops served at Genki Sushi restaurants on Oahu and Kauai as a likely source of an ongoing hepatitis A outbreak. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 3:41 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  If consumers don’t do a good job ID’ing them, can we change the disclosures to improve that? [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 10:44 am by Chris Castle
  If you have been following the machinations by the Obama Justice Department [sic] over amending the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees,  you may have found yourself wondering who was responsible for rejecting the good faith efforts of the songwriting community in favor of a cynical back room deal with multinational tech companies and broadcasters. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 6:40 am by Dennis Crouch
Lee, No. 15-446 (BRI construction in IPRs; institution decisions unreviewable) Argued: Stryker Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
24 May 2016, 7:56 pm
This form of investing by sovereigns has become an important new element in emerging patterns of governance in this century (Clark et al., 2010; Gilson & Milhaupt 2007–8). [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:02 pm by stevemehta
PIONEER MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et. al, The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act affords certain protections to elders and dependent adults. [read post]
18 May 2016, 8:19 am by Dennis Crouch
Lee, No. 15-446 (BRI construction in IPRs; institution decisions unreviewable) Argued: Stryker Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 9:58 am by Dennis Crouch
Cordis Corporation, et al., No. 15-998 Laches: SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag, et al. v. [read post]