Search for: "In re First Judicial Cir."
Results 261 - 280
of 1,563
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2009, 4:29 am
Apotex Inc., 521 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2008). [read post]
10 May 2013, 9:38 am
As I start my next quarter century of judicial experience, I am sure that one day I will reflect on this moment as well. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 1:39 pm
Cir. 1999); and In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300 (Fed. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 1:42 pm
Res. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 3:04 pm
Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), makes clear, the public need not blindly trust judicial processes based on secret records. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 6:27 am
The First Circuit affirmed. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 7:41 am
” In Re Mirant, 613 F.3d 584, 589 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Subway Equip. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 4:30 am
Contreras, No. 11-55362, 2011 WL 1744960 (9th Cir. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 9:04 am
Bredesen, 624 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2010) and Madison v. [read post]
18 Jan 2015, 7:42 am
Excelsior Foundry Co., 56 F.3d 844, 846-47 (7th Cir.1995) (observing that an additional rationale is an arbitrator's susceptibility to ex parte communications, absent the constraint of judicial ethics). [read post]
27 Feb 2022, 9:49 pm
Cir. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 3:30 pm
Or, at a very minimum, to try to prevent such a problem in the first place by inviting intervenors and/or suggesting that existing class counsel obtain co-counsel. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 11:13 am
By Dennis Crouch In re TC Heartland LLC (on mandamus to the Fed Cir. 2015) (read-it: Heartland Mand) An interesting mandamus action was recently filed by the Prof John Duffy and Jim Dabney (both now with Hughes Hubbard) raising the following: Whether 28 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 10:46 am
Supreme Court review of In Re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. [read post]
30 Dec 2014, 11:24 am
Compare In re Dow Jones & Co., Inc. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 12:54 pm
Cir. 2011); In re Petitioners Seeking Habeas Corpus Relief in Relation to Prior Detentions at Guantanamo Bay, 700 F. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 1:52 pm
In the first phase, the PTO determineswhether to institute IPR. [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 9:50 am
The court of appeals answered the first question "yes," and the second, "no. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 3:32 pm
The State contended that its interpretation of the Act was consistent with the Lanham Act, the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 5:01 am
City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2004) ("Judicial proceedings are supposed to be open…. [read post]
