Search for: "Moore v. Proper" Results 1 - 20 of 439
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Sep 2021, 12:18 pm by Eugene Volokh
"Allowing different remedies in state law cases heard in federal courts on pendent jurisdiction would undermine the 'twin aims of the Erie rule: discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws.'" LaShawn A. by Moore v. [read post]
2 Jun 2021, 2:39 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Note: Chief Judge Moore assumed the position of Chief Judge on May 22, 2021. [read post]
14 May 2021, 4:15 am by Eileen McDermott
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman dissented in part from a decision authored by CAFC Judge Moore yesterday, explaining that, while she agrees that New Vision Gaming’s request for vacatur and remand of two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. [read post]
14 May 2021, 4:15 am by Eileen McDermott
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman dissented in part from a decision authored by CAFC Judge Moore yesterday, explaining that, while she agrees that New Vision Gaming’s request for vacatur and remand of two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Apr 2021, 4:00 am by Administrator
In Moore, the Tribunal referenced Ananda v. [read post]
18 Mar 2021, 9:33 am by Christopher Tyner
A traffic checkpoint had a valid programmatic purpose regardless of the fact that the location of the checkpoint moved throughout the evening State v. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 1:56 pm by Scott McKeown
Amicus Briefing May Help Get SCOTUS Attention on Growing 101 Morass In one of the more closely-watched cases involving patent eligibility, American Axle v. [read post]
9 Feb 2021, 11:33 am by Jonathan Holbrook
Moore, 311 N.C. 442 (1984) (principal is one “who actually perpetrates the crime either by his own hand or through an innocent agent“); State v. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 12:58 pm by Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff
As a non-precedential decision on claim construction, Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 11:56 am by Phil Dixon
(1) Despite the State’s repeated use of “moped” to describe the defendant’s vehicle, sufficient evidence existed to establish that the defendant’s vehicle met the statutory definition of “motor vehicle”; (2) New trial required where trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “motor vehicle” State v. [read post]