Search for: "His Law v. USA" Results 2561 - 2580 of 3,297
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jan 2011, 8:10 am by V.Venkatesan
” In this statement of law lies the genesis of PILs of the future.Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 6:19 am by Adam Chandler
SCOTUSblog has Doug Berman’s preview of Sykes, a case that he is “struggling to get psyched for,” according to his blog Sentencing Law and Policy. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 6:35 am by Kiran Bhat
Robert Pear reports in the New York Times on the Obama administration’s unexpected support for drug maker Astra Zeneca in Astra USA, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 9:45 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Cir. 2009); In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 3:08 pm by By Adam Wahlberg
Joan Hennessy writes about cover subject Paul Mark Sandler of Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler, a top 10 lawyer who has tried many high-profile cases (including USA v. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 10:13 pm
Relying on the previous ninth circuit decision of Barcamerica Int’l USA Trust v Tyfield Importers, Inc., 289 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2002), the court rejected all attempts by TFN in support of its claim that adequate quality control was in place. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 6:38 am by Charon QC
My ex-wife used to roll her eyes when I said, as one does, non haec in foedera veni [Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 10:22 pm by legalinformatics
Many papers on legal communication were presented at NCA 10: The 96th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, held November 14-17, 2010 in San Francisco, California, USA. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 7:30 am
For shows from 0x17 onward, the license for those materials is the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 3.0 USA license (CC-By-SA-3.0 USA). [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 9:29 pm
The reasoning, thanks to Justice Blackmun's obiter dictum in Jones v. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 1:54 pm by Bexis
  And in cases where punitive damages are sought, consolidation of multiple plaintiffs into one trial is, in our view, a per se violation of Philip Morris USA v. [read post]