Search for: "United States v. Fries" Results 241 - 260 of 261
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Dec 2007, 7:47 am
Title V/CSHCN has supported care notebooks for families and hired parent advocates around the state. [read post]
4 Dec 2007, 9:20 am
UPDATE:  The California Supreme Court's decision in Rico v. [read post]
17 Oct 2007, 12:31 am
[17] Ina Fried, Microsoft Commentary Slams EU Ruling, CNet Networks, Aug. 22, 2004, [www.news.com] [read post]
17 Aug 2007, 1:28 am
And the wording of the granted issue in United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2007, 1:12 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCriminal PracticePolice Authorized to Search Apartment, Met 'Miranda' Public Safety Exception; Gun's Suppresion Denied United States v. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 12:55 am
Low-Profile Supreme Court Case Offers Glimpse of Sharp Divide Legal Times The case of Bowles v. [read post]
24 May 2007, 9:43 am
  Legal ethics speclialists may recall Standing Committee on Discipline in the United States District Court for the Central District of California v. [read post]
4 May 2007, 4:25 am
"[A]ll such proceedings for the enforcement, or to restrain violations of this chapter shall be by and in the name of the United States. [read post]
9 Mar 2007, 3:10 pm
Tombs emphasized the advantages of SSP associating with Texas Tech University which is recognized as having the top financial planning program in the United States. [read post]
3 Mar 2007, 4:06 pm
United States that "use" requires "active employment" of the firearm against 1993's SOC holding in Smith v. [read post]
30 Nov 2006, 10:11 am
Hungar, Deputy Solicitor General, argued next on behalf of the United States as an amicus in support of petitioner. [read post]
27 Nov 2006, 3:59 pm
Dabney of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, & Jacobson, L.L.P. will argue for petitioner KSR International, and Tom Hungar, Deputy Solicitor General, will argue on behalf of the United States as an amicus in support of petitioner. [read post]
24 Nov 2006, 2:41 pm
") The other group learned the invention's history first, and was less likely to see the invention as obvious.(...)KSR's lawyer James Dabney, a partner at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, says that the change doesn't weaken his client's position at all: "The solicitor general of the United States and the Patent and Trademark Office have filed a brief that strongly disagrees with Mr. [read post]