Search for: "Holder v. Smith"
Results 181 - 200
of 500
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Oct 2014, 7:05 am
Smith, 756 F.3d 1070 (2014). [read post]
22 Oct 2014, 4:20 am
(also captioned v. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 9:44 am
The decision was a departure from decades of jurisprudence, which previously held that voluntarily providing your information to a third party was a forfeiture of a legitimate expectation of privacy, as in the 1979 case of Smith v. [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 2:27 pm
Smith, 684 F. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 6:33 pm
Six years ago, Representative Smith introduced the Patent Reform Act of 2005. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 2:01 pm
Lexis 1688, at *25-26 n.8 (citing Wyeth v. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 11:05 pm
” Ian Smith weighs in on Evenwel v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 11:48 am
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 09, 2009 Holder v. [read post]
14 May 2012, 5:40 am
In William Smith v. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 7:48 am
Smith Production Inc., No. 09-0270 (docket and briefs):1 “The principal issue is whether the standard form joint-operating agreement allows a non-operating oil-and-gas interest-holder to change its election regarding a drilling proposal when the change is within the agreement’s 30-day response period. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 10:37 am
I missed the first one, United States v. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 6:22 am
U.S. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 9:46 am
Munich v. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 9:00 am
Stuart considered that five years is not necessarily too long for a mark holder to claim a monopoly right if there is a genuine intention to use the mark. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 9:48 am
First up was Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 7:08 am
Holder, 08-1449). [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 6:10 am
Courant, Lauren Smith of Roll Call, Vince Coglianese of The Daily Caller, and Damon W. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 1:34 pm
In an essay forthcoming in a symposium issue of the Syracuse Law Review, I argue that taken at face value, DC v. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 7:07 am
Anthony List v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 9:22 pm
Kaersvang: Marbury v. [read post]
