Search for: "In re Doe" Results 2641 - 2660 of 107,445
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Feb 2019, 6:29 am by Jacques Singer-Emery
Circuit heard oral argument in In re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashiri. [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 8:05 am by Dennis Crouch
  However, it does open the door to request reconsideration. [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 10:26 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Cir. 1983); In re Andersen, 391 F.2d 953, 958 (CCPA 1968)); see also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. "). [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 9:34 am
"If the immigrant community represents a large proportion of the population, you're likely in one of the country's safer cities. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 5:26 pm by Steven
Publishers Weekly – “Librarians and book re-sellers say their core activities are now in question after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on August 15 upheld a lower court decision finding that the “First Sale” doctrine in U.S. copyright law—the provision that enables libraries to lend and consumers to re-sell books they’ve lawfully purchased—does not apply to works manufactured outside the U.S. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 10:02 am by Eric
Next, if we're not governed by either 17 USC 512 or 47 USC 230, then exactly what legal standard applies to a web republisher of alleged child porn? [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 9:33 am by A. Benjamin Spencer
That question does not lend itself to a simple answer, for there is a split among the Circuits on this point. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 4:50 am by SHG
Update: In an update, Marty has generously sought to re-explain, maybe for my benefit (?) [read post]
16 May 2011, 10:10 am
Florida auto insurance does not come cheap and a tough economy is putting an even bigger squeeze on Florida drivers. [read post]
16 Dec 2016, 3:00 am by Biglaw Investor
The government does not want you to file separately. [read post]
18 Dec 2020, 12:48 pm
(In re Baycol Cases I & II(2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 756; Aixtron, Inc. v. [read post]