Search for: "State v. Holderness" Results 221 - 240 of 7,256
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jun 2024, 6:16 am by Ahilan Arulanantham
According to recent estimates, there are now less than 600,000 DACA holders, but nearly 700,000 TPS holders. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 6:20 pm
  One does not develop a help desk from the bottom up--nor necessarily with a view to enlarging the primacy of human rights holders who tend to bear the consequences of adverse human rights impacts.[12] Instead, it tends to be more efficient to target those collective organs into which positive responsibility for the care and protection of human rights harms bearers authority are vested. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 6:25 am by David N. Crapo
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion1 in Truck Insurance Exchange v. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 6:25 am by David N. Crapo
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion1 in Truck Insurance Exchange v. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 6:25 am by David N. Crapo
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion1 in Truck Insurance Exchange v. [read post]
19 Jun 2024, 6:31 am by Barry Barnett
Patent holder’s grant of right to license patent didn’t deprive it of standing to sue for infringement. 22-2207.OPINION.5-1-2024_2310958.pdf (uscourts.gov) Infringement judgment didn’t become final before unpatentability decision did. 22-2064.OPINION.5-2-2024_2311705.pdf (uscourts.gov) Patent holder’s effort to stop Utah company from making sales that holder claimed infringed its patent made it subject to personal jurisdiction in Utah.… [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 2:53 pm by Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle)
True, the requirement is that the SEP holder must disclose existing agreements etc. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 3:35 pm by Ronald Mann
” Sotomayor pointed to the confusion lower courts have had applying the similar analysis Thomas offered in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 4:57 am by Marcel Pemsel
The referring court was right to state that the protection under Art. 8(3) CDR does not require the design to serve an aesthetic function. [read post]