Search for: "State v. L. B. T." Results 2401 - 2420 of 3,630
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jul 2012, 11:01 pm by Orin Kerr
The delay question came up in passing in Footnote 3 of United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 12:15 pm by dirklasater
”1 Aside from the granular problems stated above, and recognizing that the proposed amendments would in fact add to the problem astutely noted in the quote above by Lawrence Lessig, there is a global, more systemic conflict at issue within the realm of copyright enforcement litigation deserving mention. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 10:11 am by WSLL
Fenn, JudgeRepresenting Appellants (Plaintiffs): Greg L. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm by NFS Esq.
Attorney A might argue that he has a qualified work product privilege to these statements – he spent the time, money, and effort to take the statements, so Attorney B shouldn’t be allowed to take advantage of this. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 9:16 am by WSLL
Fenn, JudgeRepresenting Appellants (Plaintiffs):  Greg L. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver
Nevertheless, the OD dealt with the objection in substance […] by stating that claims 1 and 2 of auxiliary request II were not limited to a single plant variety and were therefore allowable under A 53(b) and R 23b(4) EPC 1973. [23] Under these circumstances the objection under A 100(a) in conjunction with A 53(b) against product claims relating to tomato fruits cannot be regarded as a fresh ground of opposition which may be introduced in the appeal proceedings only… [read post]