Search for: "JOHNSON v. THE STATE" Results 2361 - 2380 of 8,030
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Nov 2017, 11:28 am by vera
An incorrect claim about the inter partes review (IPR) and other procedures like IPR at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has been circulating, and was recently repeated in written comments at a congressional hearing by Philip Johnson, former head of intellectual property at Johnson & Johnson. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 3:00 am by Jon Katz
Fairfax criminal lawyer again says legalize prostitution What justifies criminalizing prostitution other than America’s bipolar relationship with sex, which on the one hand still criminalizes adultery in the Virginia code (effectively invalidated by the United States Supreme Court in  Texas v. [read post]
10 Nov 2017, 5:32 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Lawrence (Jurisdiction; Breach of Contract) State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.htmlRocks Off Inc. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2017, 3:10 am by Walter Olson
“Baseball rule” win for Yankees at appeals court: “Court Rules Against Fan in New York State Foul-Ball Case” [Zach Spedden, Ballpark Digest] More on the downfall of the $417 million baby powder verdict against Johnson & Johnson [Steven Boranian/Drug & Device Law, Robert H. [read post]
9 Nov 2017, 2:57 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Lawrence (Jurisdiction; Breach of Contract)State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.htmlRocks Off Inc. v. [read post]
9 Nov 2017, 2:57 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Lawrence (Jurisdiction; Breach of Contract)State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.htmlRocks Off Inc. v. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 3:31 am by INFORRM
In the case of Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB) Nicol J held that a Government Press Release  which meant that the claimant,  Dr Salman Butt, was an extremist hate speaker constituted a statement of opinion, not of fact. [read post]
29 Oct 2017, 12:17 pm by Lisa Ouellette
Last Term, the Supreme Court called for the views of the solicitor general in Loomis v. [read post]