Search for: "Hill v. Berry" Results 1 - 20 of 60
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jun 2022, 12:39 am by INFORRM
Last Week in the Courts On 8 June 2022 there was a directions hearing the case of Hills v Fomukong Epse Tabe before Collins Rice J. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 8:01 am by William Ford, Victoria Gallegos
Nicholas Burns, former undersecretary of state for political affairs; Abigail Golden-Vázquez, vice president and founding executive director of the Aspen Institute Latinos and Society Program; and Amb. [read post]
18 Jan 2021, 5:00 am by Josh Blackman
  Quoted in Trump courts new controversy with travel ban expansion, The Hill (Jan. 23, 2020). [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 3:43 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)Berry v. [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 11:04 am by Unknown
Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)Berry v. [read post]
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
(Center for History and Economics, Harvard University)Moderators: Elizabeth Lhost, Dartmouth College (elizabeth.d.lhost@dartmouth.edu) and Emma Rothschild, Harvard University (rothsch@fas.harvard.edu)Convener: Kalyani Ramnath, Harvard University (kalyaniramnath@fas.harvard.edu)Debjani Bhattacharya, Drexel University (db893@drexel.edu) South Asia 1Julia Stephens, Rutgers University (julia.stephens@rutgers.edu) South Asia 2Tatiana Seijas, Rutgers University… [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 7:45 am by Andrew Hamm
In an op-ed for The Hill, Lawrence Friedman looks at New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 4:11 am by Edith Roberts
’” In an op-ed for The Hill, Richard Custin argues that the court should review Daniel v. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer), heard 25 Jan 2018. [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 4:33 am by Edith Roberts
” At The Hill, Ali Breland reports that the “tight control that tech companies have over how consumers use their products may be in jeopardy” following the court’s decision this week in Impression Products, Inc. v Lexmark International, Inc., in which the justices ruled that U.S. and overseas sales of a product extinguish the patentholder’s rights to sue for infringement. [read post]