Search for: "US v. Charles Davis" Results 221 - 240 of 279
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am by Eugene Volokh
"[19] On February 7, 1861, Representative Davis declared that Floyd had "supplied arms to be forthwith used in making war against their rightful owners. [read post]
1 Feb 2018, 9:16 am by Alfred Brophy
  Maybe I’d put Angela Davis, If They Come in the Morning (1971) into this category. [read post]
30 Oct 2018, 9:58 am by Kevin Kaufman
The Task Force has already seen results, facilitating voluntary local reforms, and it takes on even greater importance in the wake of the Wayfair v. [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
Techdirt reports that a US law firm has been fined $71,000 for filing legal claims based on false documents as part of a ‘reputation management strategy. [read post]
12 Nov 2017, 5:51 am by Gritsforbreakfast
(See an earlier podcast segment on the topic.)Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Front-end and back-end solutions.Death and TexasUS Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Ayestas v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 10:06 am by Roshonda Scipio
(RES) TZ 2 SP33 2011 Civil Rights With all deliberate speed : implementing Brown v. [read post]
21 Oct 2012, 5:40 am by pete.black@gmail.com (Peter Black)
  These are some of the other things I've been tweeting about this weekend: "Twitter Indicates it Will Act Upon Requests to Censor Hate Speech" http://pjblack.me/RSlsUI "The Supreme Court’s terrible decision in Bowers v. [read post]
14 Apr 2014, 5:19 am by Alfred Brophy
  Maybe I’d put Angela Davis, If They Come in the Morning (1971) into this category. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 9:03 pm by renholding
[5] Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change, Release No. 33-9106 (Feb. 2, 2010) [75 FR 6290 (Feb. 8, 2010)] [6] See Basic Inc. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2010, 4:59 pm
Therefore, when the specification uses a single embodiment to enable the claims, courts should not limit the broader claim language to that embodiment "unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using 'words or expressions of manifest execution or restriction.'" Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. [read post]