Search for: "In INTEREST OF FEW v. State"
Results 2461 - 2480
of 11,570
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jul 2012, 5:29 pm
Weitz v. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 6:30 am
Just as importantly, perhaps, states perturbed by the undoubtedly correct decision by the Supreme Court in Chisholm v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 1:50 pm
United States, 131 S. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 7:58 pm
In its April 2 ruling in OOIDA v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 6:31 am
See Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
30 May 2022, 3:17 am
This case, Longoria v. [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 4:23 pm
Similarly, in Kita v. [read post]
6 May 2010, 5:29 am
Over at VC, Eugene Volokh posts about the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in State v. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 8:43 am
First, that its fees were in fact Class I costs of administration, which are stated by RSA 402-C:44, I to include “reasonable attorney’s fees. [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 9:21 am
See, e.g., Miller v. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 7:12 am
The last few months have been the most personally and professionally devastating of my life. [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 7:32 pm
Although much of the commentary on this case has focused on how the Court has modified the historic test used for injunctions, few have looked at other aspects of the ruling, including the enforceability of statutory publication bans online. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 8:05 am
I was likely not alone as the interest over National Federation of Independent Business, et al v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 9:08 am
Last year, in District Attorney’s Office v. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 5:35 am
But the case State v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 4:08 pm
Following up on previous posts (see February and May archives), the City of Berkeley Respondents and the Kapors (Real Parties in Interest) filed their joint 80-page opening brief on the merits on July 27 in Berkeley Hillside Preservation, et al. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 4:08 pm
Following up on previous posts (see February and May archives), the City of Berkeley Respondents and the Kapors (Real Parties in Interest) filed their joint 80-page opening brief on the merits on July 27 in Berkeley Hillside Preservation, et al. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2018, 7:35 am
While this might appear to be a defense limited to a few special cases, there is room to argue that the underlying principle has broader application. [read post]
4 Aug 2009, 1:51 pm
In his confirmation hearing on July 29, 2009, David stated "I am mindful that the USPTO serves the interests of all innovators in this country, small and large, corporate and independent, academic and applied, and most importantly the public interest. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 12:12 am
Caballes (2005) and United States v. [read post]
