Search for: "Flower v. United States" Results 261 - 280 of 394
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Dec 2008, 12:10 pm
ICR owns the rights to United States Patent No. 7,111,252 ("the '252 Patent"). [read post]
10 Jun 2016, 9:32 am by John Elwood
United States, 15-8629. [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 2:34 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
  Basfar v Wong, heard 13th-14th October  Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Crosland, heard 18th October  Secretary of State for the Home Department v SC (Jamaica), heard 19th October  Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees Ltd, heard 26th October  Harpur Trust v Brazel, heard… [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 12:24 pm by Kevin
Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the United States of America (Case No. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 5:00 pm by John Elwood
United States without reaching the central question presented by the cert petition, which involved clarifying the rule of Marks v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 8:35 am by Steve Lubet
  While most states are content to have an official flower and bird, Arkansas has become the only state with an official version of the Decalogue. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Both federal and state environmental review were necessitated for the project, however the appellate court only reviewed the relevant state law issues. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 2:25 am by Matrix Law
R (on the application of Afzal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 7th June 2023. [read post]
3 Nov 2021, 10:26 am by John Elwood
United States, involves claims of a person convicted of murder arguing he cannot be executed because of his intellectual disability. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 6:42 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Gameologist Group, LLC v. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 9:27 am by Steve Hall
After losing in the federal appeals court in Atlanta, the firm persuaded a former United States solicitor general, Gregory G. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 1:15 am
Inspired by the notion, described in this recent post, that no reasonable consumer in the United States might regard a product branded 'vitaminwater' as being a healthy beverage, several of the Kats' correspondents have been sending him amusing items from their own jurisdictions which reflect upon things that reasonable consumers might not consider. [read post]