Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 2021 - 2040 of 29,811
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 May 2019, 9:18 am
Weatherly, 525 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2008), the Third Circuit ruled that the prosecutor’s statement was not improper vouching, but was merely a commonsense conclusion which did not require explicit supporting evidence on the record. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 1:19 pm by Jon Sands
Orozco-Acosta, 607 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2010), so is a verification of removal form. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 5:33 am
Acosta-Colon, 157 F.3d at 19 (emphasis in original); see also Mohamed, 630 F.3d at 6-7. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 10:07 am
Peeples, 568 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009); amended in part on rehearing 605 F.3d 871 (11th Cir. 2010); vacated by order granting en banc review - F.3d - (11th Cir. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 3:09 am by John L. Welch
In the two standard character applications, Applicant sought registration under Section 2(f), thereby conceding that the mark is not inherently distinctive. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 1:34 pm by Chuck Ramsay
Resolution of this issue not only implicates the scientific foundation of F-VUAT testing in general, but also involves the key Due Process right of every defendant to present a complete defense. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 1:34 pm by Chuck Ramsay
Resolution of this issue not only implicates the scientific foundation of F-VUAT testing in general, but also involves the key Due Process right of every defendant to present a complete defense. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 8:40 am by The Docket Navigator
Hatton Associates, 680 F.2d 895 (2d Cir. 1982)] because [the inventor/attorney] is not a litigant. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 11:55 am
  The facts get a little silly as a defendant is termed "verbally abusive" when he says that he was stopped for "driving while black. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 7:57 am by Rebekah
Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189 (3rd Circ. 2006)). [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 6:50 am
., defendant did not submit to the officer’s show of authority at first by backing up. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 6:12 am by Antitrust Today
  The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings consistent the Circuit’s 2008 decision in In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008). [read post]