Search for: "Fields v. United States" Results 2481 - 2500 of 5,459
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jan 2014, 7:37 pm by Florian Mueller
In U.S. federal court, it's not impossible but certainly rather difficult to satisfy the eBay v. [read post]
7 Sep 2021, 3:31 am
Appellants argued that the ATJs were likewise principal officers of the United States, and were unconstitutionally appointed. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 9:23 am by Paul McGreal
Given the diversity of religions in the United States, as well as the pervasiveness of the modern regulatory state, a wide array of state and federal laws arguably burden the free exercise of religion. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 11:42 am by Florian Mueller
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already issued one ruling in Apple's favor against Google's Motorola (reversing and remanding an ITC ruling, which Google just asked it to reconsider), was clearly leaning Apple's way last month with respect to its continued pursuit of a permanent injunction against Samsung, and based on how today's appellate hearing on Judge Richard Posner's June 2012 dismissal of a two-way Apple v. [read post]
24 Aug 2021, 11:39 am by Lydia Estep
In addition to the state and federal courts of D.C., VA, and M.D., he is a member of the Federal Courts in Puerto Rico, Colorado, and Texas, as well as the Court of Federal Claims, the Federal Circuit, where he has recently argued and won three appellate matters, the Veteran’s Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court, where he was lead counsel on a False Claims Act case (See United States ex rel. [read post]
15 Sep 2013, 7:23 pm by Wells Bennett
As we meet for these pretrial proceedings in United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 9:13 pm by Evan Brown (@internetcases)
After all, in part through its ads at Wrigley Field, the United Center and Joliet Speedway, not to mention the numerous Super Bowl ads seen in Illinois, GoDaddy had acquired hundreds of thousands of customers in the state. [read post]
4 May 2018, 11:58 pm by Anthony Zaller
  The California Supreme Court recognized this in Dynamex, stating: As the United States Supreme Court observed in Board v. [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 4:35 am
Cir. 2000), in which we stated that the purpose of the written description requirement is to "ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification," id. at 1345. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 10:50 am by Bexis
  Answer:  Because of the effect on “further appellate review” – which means the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
23 Feb 2017, 12:04 pm by John Elwood
United States, 16-5046, challenges both our spellcheck software and our ability to resist obvious jokes. [read post]