Search for: "Green v. Smith et al" Results 1 - 20 of 98
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Feb 2023, 11:37 am by David Kopel
These handguns, from companies such as Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Springfield, or Glock, are the most common defensive firearms in the United States; under the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. [read post]
20 May 2021, 2:57 am by Jessica Kroeze
The refusal cites documentsD1: TSAI D-M ET AL: "The evaluation of normalized cross correlations for defect detection", PATTERN RECOGNITION LETTERS, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 24, no. 15, November 2003, pages 2525-2535D2: TSAI D-M ET AL: "Fast normalized cross correlation for defect detection", PATTERN RECOGNITION LETTERS, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 24, no. 15, November 2003, pages 2625-2631D3: R. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 9:03 pm by Guest Contributor
Rangel et al. 20054 reported that 41 percent of outbreaks were linked to beef and 21 percent to leafy vegetables. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 1:20 am by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Smith, et. al., Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of The Constitutional Rights and Interests Of Children in Support of Respondents in Masterpiece Cakeshop LTD, et al v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 9:19 am by Beth Graham
Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, et al., No. 16-712, Greene’s Energy Group filed a request for an inter partes review of two patent claims owned by Oil States Energy. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 9:19 am by Beth Graham
Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, et al., No. 16-712, Greene’s Energy Group filed a request for an inter partes review of two patent claims owned by Oil States Energy. [read post]
16 Jul 2016, 10:39 am by Bill Marler
  We have proudly represented such victims as Brianne Kiner, Stephanie Smith and Linda R [read post]
1 May 2016, 1:49 pm by streetartandlaw
§ 1125(a)) Relief for Unfair Competition Under California Business And Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am by Ben
In Europe, The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of a copyright holder does not cover the distribution of an object incorporating a work where that object has been altered after its initial marketing to such an extent that it constitutes a new reproduction of that work (Case C‑419/13, Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright) with Eleonora opining that the decision means that that there is no such thing as a general principle of… [read post]