Search for: "ROBERTS V COMMERCE" Results 261 - 280 of 1,504
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Dec 2012, 11:26 pm by Robert B. Milligan
The Act is intended to strengthen the scope of the Economic Espionage Act to prevent results like the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 10:18 am by Michael O'Hear
 A third, Roberts, has a narrower view of the commerce power, but nonetheless said nothing in his opinion to cast doubt on Raich. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 6:03 pm by Joseph Fishkin
For instance, think of the Commerce Clause language in NFIB v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 9:40 pm by blogarbadmin
  The definition of the distinction that prevails in the modern international investment arbitration world, is that of Jan Paulsson in his work on “Jurisdiction and Admissibility” in Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution, Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner (2005). [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 12:30 am by Nedim Malovic
In those cases, it is sufficient that, in consequence of such use, the relevant class of persons actually perceive the goods or services, designated exclusively by the mark applied for, as originating from a particular undertaking.Accordingly, a registered trade mark that is used only as part of a composite mark or in conjunction with another mark must continue to be perceived as indicative of the origin of the goods at issue for that use to be covered by the term ‘genuine use’ within… [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 10:52 am by Robert Percival
I just returned from this morning’s oral argument in Department of HHS v. [read post]
31 May 2019, 8:28 am by Melanie Fontes
By Adriel Cepeda Derieux* Late last month, the Supreme Court heard argument in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 3:43 pm by Mark Walsh
Today is the oral argument in one of the term’s biggest cases, Department of Commerce v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to avoid the complete overturning of Roe v. [read post]