Search for: "In Re: Amendments to the Supreme Court Rules Relating to Admissions to the Bar"
Results 221 - 240
of 248
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Nov 2008, 7:03 pm
Levesque, No. 081344 A forfeiture order for $3,068,000 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, is vacated and remanded where: 1) 21 U.S.C. section 853 authorizes money judgments; 2) the case is remanded to give district court the opportunity to consider whether and to what extent the ruling in the recent Supreme Court case, US v. [read post]
20 Oct 2008, 6:46 pm
Supreme Court, October 14, 2008 Moore v. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 3:20 pm
Bissonnette, No. 081094 In a conviction for first degree murder, denial of writ of habeas corpus is affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial judge's instruction to the jury that the prosecution "does not have the burden of proving that no one else may have committed the murder" was an error that was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent as stated in In re Winship; and 2) the trial court violated defendant's Sixth… [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Riggi, No. 061280 Conviction on charges arising out of involvement in an organized crime family, including racketeering, murder and related conspiracies, is vacated and remanded where admission of eight plea allocutions of non-testifying co-conspirators amounted to plain error under the intervening authority of Crawford v. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 5:17 pm
Carrasco, No. 061887, 061888 Convictions for possession of cocaine and heroin are vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court plainly misremembered its own ruling and the state of the docket; 2) admission of one defendant's confession to impeach him may have made the difference between his conviction and his acquittal; and 3) district court's reversal of its own ruling, with no consideration for the reliance of the parties and after other… [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Mastromatteo, No. 06-2349 Denial of defendant's motion for a Franks hearing and his sentence for drug-related offenses are affirmed where: 1) defendant's failure to obtain a written conditional plea was not a jurisdictional bar to the circuit court's hearing the appeal; 2) the district court did not err in holding that defendant lacked standing to contest a search of [read post]
16 Aug 2008, 2:43 am
– discussion of Washington Post article on Ismed’s efforts to promote follow-on biologics approval pathway: (Patent Baristas), (Patent Docs), US: Congressional fact-finding on follow-on biologics: (Patent Docs), US: David v Monsanto: Biotechnology patent ‘exhaustion’ after Quanta, Supreme Court petition: (Hal Wegner), US: Ulysses Pharmaceuticals announces issuance of patent for novel class of ant [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 1:50 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: The end of William Patry’s blog: (Patry Copyright Blog), (Excess Copyright), (Patently-O), (Chicago IP Litigation Blog), (Michael Geist), (The Fire of Genius), (Techdirt), (Patry Copyright Blog), Kitchin J clarifies scope of biotech patents, in particular gene sequence patents: Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences: (Managing… [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 7:06 pm
Wecht, No. 07-4767 In a trial accusing a public official of misusing his office for private financial gain, an order to withhold from the public the names and addresses of prospective and trial jurors is vacated where: 1) the collateral order doctrine granted jurisdiction to hear the appeal; 2) intervenors-media companies had standing to challenge the order; 3) there is a presumptive First Amendment right to obtain the names of jurors prior to empanelment, which was not overcome here; but… [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:14 pm
Haviland, No. 07-3380 Grant of a conditional writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) petitioner sought to represent himself at trial, and the trial court's failure to rule on his requests to proceed pro se deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation; and 2) state courts' objectiv [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 6:15 pm
Supreme Court, June 18, 2008 Munaf v. [read post]
17 Jun 2008, 8:07 am
The district court did not rule on Appellant's due process claim. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
Supreme Court, June 02, 2008 US v. [read post]
27 May 2008, 9:50 am
Supreme Court, May 19, 2008 US v. [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:35 pm
(Amended Opinion) U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008 US v. [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 11:52 am
Supreme Court, April 16, 2008 Burgess v. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:34 am
Smith, No. 06-3112 In a case addressing the constitutionality of a vehicle impoundment under the Fourth Amendment in circumstances in which there was no standardized policy regarding the impoundment and towing of vehicles, the circuit court rules that the constitutionality of a community caretaking impoundment is judged by directly applying the Fourth Amendment, which protects people against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 9:47 am
Moore, No. 07-3434 Denial of an application for habeas corpus from a conviction and sentence for gross sexual imposition and rape is affirmed where petitioner's Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy was not violated because the requisite high degree of necessity existed for a mistrial. [read post]
22 Mar 2008, 2:00 am
: (IPBiz),US: Two remaining challenged WARF embryonic stem cell patents upheld in ex parte reexamination: (Holman's Biotech IP Blog), Pharma & Biotech - ProductsAricept (Donepezil) – USV wins appeal against USPTO decision: (Spicy IP),Celerex (Celecoxib) – CAFC decision in Celebrex patents dispute between Pfizer and Teva will cut patent term by one and a half years: (Patent Baristas), Inersan – Ranbaxy in-licenses Inersan to CD Pharma to market in India and… [read post]
11 Feb 2008, 8:08 am
Vonner, No. 05-5295 "A sentence for drug-related offenses is affirmed where: 1) district courts may, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, find sentencing facts in applying the now-advisory sentencing guidelines; 2) defendant forfeited an argument that the district court failed adequately to explain its rejection of his arguments for leniency and could not show plain error; and 3) his within-guidelines sentence was reasonable. [read post]
