Search for: "Matter of Cert. of a Question of Law"
Results 261 - 280
of 1,619
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2021, 11:50 am
While you can do business with China (Cyber is not an IT matter, it is a risk matter so just calibrate), remember that by law the Chinese government has the right to access anything on demand and without process. [read post]
21 Jul 2021, 8:07 am
Any ethical questions were avoided. [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 5:18 pm
This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, the same question under similar circumstances. [read post]
3 Feb 2010, 9:16 am
The President was answering a question about network neutrality—the number 1 question about the economy uploaded by users for an innovative online interview with the President.How could the courts screw this up too? [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 11:13 am
Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372 (cert. granted Oct. 1, 2008. [read post]
28 May 2021, 6:39 am
In his cert petition, Hernandez argues that he is entitled to a certificate of appealability because the Supreme Court has said those should issue when a petitioner shows that “reasonable jurists could debate … whether the petition should have been resolved in a different matter. [read post]
13 Feb 2018, 4:26 pm
The question presented in the cert petition was whether the Court should overrule the physical-presence rule of Quill. [read post]
4 Feb 2016, 5:34 am
Apple has just responded to Samsung's mid-December petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) regarding two legal questions concerning design patents and, in the same document, to amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs from major industry players, many IP law professors and various public interest advocates, all of whom agree with Samsung that the top U.S. court should take a look at this matter. [read post]
28 Apr 2009, 2:00 pm
Lyle Denniston, Scotusblog, Court partly upholds “dirty words” ban, "The main opinion stressed that it was dealing only with the question of whether the flat ban was “arbitrary and capricious” as a matter of law. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 8:55 am
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court devotes growing attention to a slice of highly salient public law questions, including those presented on the shadow docket, thereby slighting matters of private law and fueling dysfunctional decision-making. [read post]
6 Mar 2007, 5:25 pm
While this made for an easy forum non conveniens dismissal, RBG said, there were tricky questions about subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. [read post]
31 Jul 2007, 7:52 am
Bublick, Attorney at Law, Practice Limited to Bankruptcy Law, Member of the Florida Bar since 1983 [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 8:05 am
But to begin, in this post I’ll discuss a couple of important preliminary matters that frame the unusual Article III questions in these two cases: I. [read post]
18 Nov 2018, 8:46 pm
" The government's opening brief is due on December 17.This is, I believe, a very strange, almost inexplicable, grant, in light of two things:First, on October 22, the Supreme Court denied a government motion to stay discovery of matters outside the administrative record (with the exception of the deposition of the Secretary of Commerce, which therefore did not occur). [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 4:48 pm
The Court should not act on this important question of current economic policy, solely to expiate a mistake it made over 50 years ago. ... [read post]
6 Jun 2023, 11:23 am
In 2019, when the Supreme Court took cert in Emulex v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 6:30 am
And this matters greatly for the question of deference and why it doesn’t appear to the same extent in these other systems. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 12:42 pm
Under the law in its current form, "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter . . . may obtain a patent therefor. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 8:14 am
I do not believe the FTC has presented a convincing case for granting cert. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 11:53 am
The district court decided as a matter of law that the asserted claims were drawn to non-statutory subject matter and as such, unpatentable. [read post]
