Search for: "People v. Mays" Results 2761 - 2780 of 39,081
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Aug 2020, 8:38 am by Florian Mueller
In my observation, those who participated in some recent Munich patent trials via videoconferencing were largely people who didn't show up at previous Nokia v. [read post]
28 May 2021, 10:32 pm by Florian Mueller
They brought butter knives to a gunfight (a quote from a document that surfaced in the recent Epic Games v. [read post]
5 May 2009, 10:25 am
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust Flores-Figueroa v. [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 4:33 am by Grace Capel
The post Case Preview: Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared first on UKSC blog. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 6:31 am by JB
The answer that people gave was that as long as limits on association were symmetrical between the races, they were constitutional.We can see this logic at work in Pace v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 10:05 am by Mary L. Dudziak
Cross-posted from SCOTUS Blog, where this essay is part of its special Black History Month coverage:In May 1954, Brown v. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 5:00 pm
Posted by Ted Gianaris April 23, 2011 Ventura County, California sheriff deputies have discovered that hundreds of people may have been wrongly convicted of driving under the influence since January 2011 as a result of a type of suspected faulty breathalyzer called the Alco-Sensor V, a handheld testing device made by a St. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 5:00 pm
Posted by Ted Gianaris April 23, 2011 Ventura County, California sheriff deputies have discovered that hundreds of people may have been wrongly convicted of driving under the influence since January 2011 as a result of a type of suspected faulty breathalyzer called the Alco-Sensor V, a handheld testing device made by a St. [read post]
16 Feb 2022, 7:01 am by Eric Goldman
Conversion “Although Georgia law may provide relief for the conversion of certain intangible property, we have never extended that tort to claims based on the mere use of a trademark or on trade name infringement, and we decline to do so now. [read post]