Search for: "John Doe(s) 1-17" Results 241 - 260 of 2,650
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Apr 2020, 9:59 am by John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists, as well as some released holds. [read post]
7 Nov 2017, 12:28 pm by John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 9:19 am by John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists. [read post]
23 Feb 2017, 12:04 pm by John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists Welcome back from the longest break from Supreme Court news that you’ll get all term! [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 7:12 am by John Elwood
John Elwood briefly reviews Monday’s relists. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 10:04 am by Terry Hart
1 September 17 marks “Constitution Day” in the United States, a day that commemorates the approval of the final draft of the Constitution by the U.S. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 9:11 am by John Elwood
John Elwood finally reviews Monday’s relisted cases. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 8:15 am by John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 7:42 am by Marty Lederman
 According to the Court's modern standing doctrine, “[a] litigant ‘raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 2:58 am by John L. Welch
And so the Board denied the Section 2(e)(1) claims.In sum, the Board granted the petitions for cancellation on Section 2(d) grounds, but dismissed the oppositions, which were brought on Section 2(a) and 2(e)(1) grounds.Read comments and post your comments here.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 5:43 pm
Does 1-17, the "John Doe" case targeting students at the University of Oregon, the Court has granted the motion to quash made by the Oregon Attorney General on behalf of the University, agreeing that the subpoena as worded imposed an undue burden on the University by requiring it to produce "sufficient information to identify alleged infringers", which the Court agreed would have required the University to "conduct an… [read post]